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 - Art

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: August 29, 2013, 04:46:27 PM »
It seems likely they only have a single free C-Band service available.

This is the satellite I was talking about that gets pinged every day by ham radio operators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMSAT-OSCAR_7
The time delay is about 1/2 second, or 1 second for round trip,
so distance measurement is possible.

62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: August 29, 2013, 04:17:36 AM »
You don't need anything I posted to demonstrate that.
You can drive far enough in a car so that the elevation angle of the dish mount is slightly different.

You could have a few pay TV customers with the same service provider that live across a country
verify the elevation angle on their dish mount, so long as the mast is mounted level.
The same service provider will use the same hardware for a period of time,
and the dish mount usually has a protractor marked on it.
Same as your pictures, it looks like more or less the same hardware...
Not too many different satellite TV installers in a small area over there I'd say.

It is the same with the prime focus dishes you pictured, though in that area, it might be
difficult to travel far enough in any hurry, for any kind of data collection.



Is that even relevant if you must point the dish through a hole in a canopy, or move it only slightly to lose signal, etc. ?
... and can block the signal with an object close to the dish, from the direction the signal is coming from?


Optus B3 is at 164E. Your dish must have been directed to the location above the Pacific ocean as shown in the below URL. If it was transmitted by a tower as claimed by some flat earthers then that tower would have to be in the middle of the Pacific ocean (nightmare from cost, logistical and maintenance point of view). They still haven't replied why these so called equatorial towers would have to be on or above equator, and most of them on or above the water.

http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=164
That's only relevant to show that there is signal coming from the direction the dish points to and that the signal must not be obstructed. But it doesn't explain what object transmits that signal. Flat earthers don't accept that the signal originates from geostationary satellites but they don't offer any alternative explanation that survives simple scrutiny.

63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: August 29, 2013, 03:06:02 AM »

Is that even relevant if you must point the dish through a hole in a canopy, or move it only slightly to lose signal, etc. ?
... and can block the signal with an object close to the dish, from the direction the signal is coming from?

Optus B3 is at 164E. Your dish must have been directed to the location above the Pacific ocean as shown in the below URL. If it was transmitted by a tower as claimed by some flat earthers then that tower would have to be in the middle of the Pacific ocean (nightmare from cost, logistical and maintenance point of view). They still haven't replied why these so called equatorial towers would have to be on or above equator, and most of them on or above the water.

http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=164

64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: August 29, 2013, 12:53:54 AM »
Hi,
I think it was first Optus B3, then C1, then D2.
The satellite was replaced over the years I used it.
Instead of having everyone re-align their pay TV dish,
they turned on the thrusters of the existing sat to move it,
and moved the new one into the same position.

This is not pay TV in the video, but free TV from the same satellite.

I am able to communicate with people who have legally TXed satellites as well,
even though I have not done it myself. They would know the specifics about the time delays
which you could only experience if you can both transmit and receive, or be in contact with
the party at the receiving end via some other communication means.



65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« on: August 28, 2013, 06:49:14 PM »
Tom is exactly correct that you are misinterpreting perspective. The experiment would prove nothing to me. I have no doubt that the mountains' height as calculated by simple art-school perspective will differ.

If I can climb a significant mountain, and measure 3D and 2D distance on the way,
and receive elevation with GPS, and also read elevation from topographic map data
given the 2D coordinates from GPS (independently determining altitude).
3D distance using Pythagoras' Theorem to apply the vertical difference to a 2D distance measurement.

What COULD be done to prove something to you with those tools?
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">AVEC GPS - Logan's Ridge, Sth Ridge.

I am doing another climb soon, and can measure anything that I find a reason to measure.

I have heard people on this forum claiming to be pilots.
It happens I can also fly a single engine light aircraft (Piper Tomahawk) over the same area.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to fly 100km from a given point that I don't choose,
to any point that I do  choose, and one further extend of that ends up here.
The air base is about 70km away from this area.

Obviously I cannot fly across continents, or from one to another.

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: August 28, 2013, 05:48:39 PM »
This is me in 2007 receiving TV from an Optus satellite.
It works because the opening of the gorge faces North where
the satellite is. Anywhere else the gorge twists, and turns,
it doesn't work because the cliffs are high enough.




Me again, don't know the exact year, but is exactly the same place.
This works until anyone sits in, or on the car, putting the dish out of alignment.



Me again at Border Ranges National Park, where I achieved the near impossible task,
of watching the Melbourne Cup live from my tent there.
These are all KU band offset dish (looking higher than they appear to).
This works because there is one single hole in the tree canopy within
a few square kilometre radius where the dish can focus North at the correct elevation.
This is the only position in the park it's possible.
When this dish is set in this position, nobody else gets TV unless I give it to them,
which is fair, because guess who discovered it?




YouTube Video:
Nothing special about the following setup instance,
except it was live olympic games, but the thing works.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Bush Programming Tent

and the first one I already mentioned:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Bush Sat TV Setup

It's funny that people are using stuff that doesn't exist every day.

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Breaking news: Satellites do exist !!!
« on: August 28, 2013, 03:53:38 PM »
Sceptic 1 photos appears to have a hill in the background. The rest do not. And all appear to have the same sat dish? Have you ever walked down a uk street? Ever noticed how all sat dishes seem to be of the same design? Funny that. And if you want to see more examples of these photos then go on google and look. Why are you once again asking people to do your research for you? You do like to be spoon fed don't you. Lol

It is clear someone hasn't done their research:

Offset dish:


But pictured in OP are prime focus dishes. They are pointed directly at the satellite they are receiving from.

Prime focus dish:



Has there been any discussion on retired satellites that have been given up for use by ham radio enthusiasts?
That's got to open a can of worms here because either it doesn't work (all the hobbyists are lying),
all of the hobbyists are in on the conspiracy, or all of the hobbyists are being fooled somehow,
and I guess the last one is the easiest picking for the uneducated here.

Earth stations are extremely high powered only to prevent ordinary people interfering with them.
When a ham operator does it, it happens with only the required power, and equipment.
Then you have an isolated group of technically minded people having to be fooled over
time delay, deterioration, and location.

68
I can rephrase that then...

If a dumb black hole can create itself, and an intelligent God can create itself,
then surely, is it outside the ability of a Universe to create itself too?

Why do you need to shovel a God into the story that existed first?
The question of God is the question of order from chaos. Whether you give him a beard, a reversed time arrow, or simply the name "order" is a matter of framing and subjective assessment. Its simply a name you put on "nature" or rather the holes in our understanding of nature and our inserted guesses to these holes.

But the question is only being asked because your calling it him, and it has also been called a being in the thread by Roundy.
That implies that an intelligent thing created itself, and then created lesser things.
It seems less complicated for me not to introduce the word God unless talking about an intelligent being,
or to accept that it's simpler for the less complicated thing (the Universe) could have come about by natural occurrence
than the more complicated thing (the intelligent God being, who then went on to create a universe).

It occurs to me that any story with "God" in it can be abbreviated to make it more plausible, by taking the "God" out of it.


69
I can rephrase that then...

If a dumb black hole can create itself, and an intelligent God can create itself,
then surely, is it outside the ability of a Universe to create itself too?

Why do you need to shovel a God into the story that existed first?

70
One more thing,
If things can create themselves, then a God would only get in the way of the Universe getting it's job done.

71
Why not?  Parsifal has assured me in the past that a black hole can create itself.  Surely this isn't above the abilities of a being like God?

Lol, great.
Then where are the rest of the infinite number of them?
Or are the rest of them agreeing not to create themselves?

I wonder if they argued between themselves over which of the infinite potential Gods would get to exist,
or if they drew straws like gentlemen.

72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is this nonsense?
« on: June 05, 2013, 01:20:01 AM »
The most direct route for a sphere would be a straight line.
The most direct route that could be traveled if there is no terrain or obstacles,
is the route across the Earth's surface that is of the shortest distance which is an arc.
If the arc is continued, it always completes a circle around the sphere, no matter where the two points are.

If it's a flat surface, the most direct possible route to travel, with the same assumption of no obstacles,
is always a straight line, and a shorter distance in comparison, the greater the two distances get.

It is important to know one way or the other if you are planning a very long distance trip which involves the purchase of fuel.




73
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 28, 2013, 12:07:44 AM »
Lol, I though any moon sickness only occurred on the real Full Moon phase,
but in any case, if someone has a problem like that, they shouldn't go looking into threads about the moon!

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 27, 2013, 08:02:01 PM »
Hi,
I'd love to be able to claim them, and I try really hard, but these were done by a real photographer :D

I know a real sequence when I see it though, I've seen an animation of a genuine sequence.
It does only show one side, but when it's played in a movie, you also see that it's also spinning like a top.
It can be seen here too. Just find any patch you can recognise, and look at the difference in it's location
throughout all of the images you can see it in.

So I think we see more than just one equal half over time.

This wasn't a debate topic for me, I don't know the answer yet.
Until I find out, it's just a post in a forum topic about the moon.
You can go for your lives though... I'll be back at it some other time :)



75
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 27, 2013, 08:46:44 AM »

Why does it occur to the observer that the Full Moon and
New Moon phases last longer than all other transitionary phases?

The days around New Moon are omitted from this one. There should be at least 28 images.


76
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 16, 2013, 09:53:19 PM »
Rowbotham?
Never heard of him outside of this forum funny enough
.
Were any of his Scientific journals peer reviewed and accepted by mainstream Science,
or was/is he just another nut job that wrote a book that convinced a minority.

It wouldn't be the first time that happened :rolleyes:

Where is his Nobel prize by the way?
and would it take Indiana Jones to find a library containing a hard copy of his books?

You realise that proving the Earth was flat would make a Scientist immortal?


77
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: April 22, 2013, 09:03:57 AM »
I haven't seen any talk about bendy radio wave.
I think if you could predict it's path it would make no practical difference by the sound of it.

Maybe they say it bends upward to explain why it doesn't arc with the Earth?
and to explain ionosphere skip?
I hope not, it's a bit desperate.

78
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: April 22, 2013, 08:41:31 AM »
Quote
Since Sir Edmund Hillary climbed Mt. Everest in 1953, I hardly think that he used GPS.  Hence the low content warning.

Sorry, my mistake:

Bradford Washburn 1999
Mounted a GPS atop Mt Everest.
" A rock head elevation of 8,850 m (29,035 ft), and a snow/ice elevation 1 m (3 ft) higher, were obtained via this device".
Wikipedia.

Quote
If GPS antennas above your head can provide your position in three dimensions (xy movement across the earth + z altitude), then why can't GPS antennas on the same plane as you provide your position in three dimensions?

Because the time it would take the signals from each tower to reach the receiver wouldn't
be very different, and commercial GPS receivers have very slow processors so their
batteries can last all day.

Quote
You're going to have to clarify how you arrived at those calculations. GPS calculations are carried out via triangulation of coordinates between a large set of satellites, I mean towers; often 5 or more. I also don't see how sensitivity to height would be any less of an issue with satellites, remember that we don't have to assume that all towers are at the same height, so sensitivity to low angles isn't necessary.

Same as above. The further away the transmitters, the longer it takes a signal to get to the receiver,
then, the more accurate the result of the program in the receiver (on a strict time budget)
in timing the distance covered by the signal from each transmitter.
GPS uses triliteration, not triangulation. It looks at the intersection of spheres
of the radius of the calculated distance travelled from each transmitter.
Many of the bonus results can be discarded because they are below sea level where GPS doesn't work.

Quote
EDIT: Thinking about other devices that use EMR to measure distance, even a cheap unit would probably have the resolution to measure this difference, but I did make it quite large. If I had used something like a 20ft change at 100km, it would have been a much smaller difference that needed to be measured. Having satellites practically overhead definitely makes it heaps easier to get an  accurate measure of altitude, no matter how far away from the receiver the satellite is.

No matter whether or not a ground based positioning system has been demonstrated
to work on Earth, resolution is always improved if the transmitter is further away.

The transmitter has a peripheral atomic clock so it can send the time and it's location
to the receiver. The receiver has a temperature compensated clock (the best we can do
at the other end, to sell it to the masses).
The receiver measures the distance travelled by comparing the transmission time from
each transmitter's clock to the receive time from the receiver's clock.

In your close to Earth GPS theory, the points of intersection in those spheres are close together,
the spheres are smaller, the erroneous results don't sound as stupid as the erroneous
results from much larger spheres, and you have several plausible locations to choose from.
This is alleviated if you don't have to think about altitude, and just use all information to calculate a 2D horizontal position.

79
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: April 19, 2013, 07:47:14 PM »

Quote
This might be a simple explanation. :
All of the land base stations in the U.S.A. for the GPS have antennas on towers about 20,000 feet high to give altitude readings on GPS receivers since the transmissions must be higher than the receptions for the altitude readings to be accurate  ?

Sir Edmund Hillary used GPS when climbing Mt Everest.

80
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: April 19, 2013, 10:41:00 AM »
Not really. In that case, the transmitting antennas are all above your altitude.
I thought this was the debating section.

81
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: April 19, 2013, 10:16:50 AM »
Quote
If I remember correctly, the question was simply "How does GPS determine your Altitude ?" (I'm assuming this was in reference to land based GPS rather than satellites, which of course are superflous to the FES Forum and can be disregarded.) I shall await an answer with the rest of you.
Yes, but I gave an example, relating some degree of accuracy,
so it's not open to a system that can only tell if you're on the moon, or on Earth for example,
because we are using one that actually has a known degree of accuracy, even if it's far from perfect.

Quote
If I am at Berthoud Pass in Colorado (over 11,000 feet in elevation) how does the GPS transmitter (let's assume there is one in Denver)  determine my altitude ? Maybe it would work if I was in Denver and there was a GPS transmitter atop Berthoud Pass ?
So if I correctly understand you there, it's working only when there is a transmitter higher than you?
I agree.



82
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: April 19, 2013, 10:06:49 AM »
I'm posting this to say I edited the post above very close to when you posted,
So you don't look silly.

I tried to explain my first post better.

83
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: April 19, 2013, 09:54:01 AM »
That much is obvious.
In my first post "My position" means: "The stance I am taking".

That is how I'm opening a debate.

I agree that a 2D ground based positioning system could work if there were enough invisible towers around to cover the Earth.
I do not agree that such a system could be used to determine your Altitude with the accuracy of the current GPS that actually exists.





84
Flat Earth Debate / How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: April 19, 2013, 08:49:29 AM »
Ok Guys,
I'm bored and up for another round.
Let's say the Earth is Flat, and although GPS works,
there's no machinery in space, so it must be ground based.

The relatively poor GPS hardware in an iPhone can provide an Altitude with estimated accuracy of 5 mtrs without waiting long.

It is my position that in order for GPS to determine your Altitude,
the transmitting antennas must be above the receiver at all times.
So how does the GPS determine Altitude?


85

Garmin, Magellan, etc. and every other GPS manufacturer.

UEC, Topfield, Humax, Pace, and any other set top decoder manufacturer,
as well as all manufacturers of LNBs, which must really just be digital compasses that only allow TV reception when pointed
the right direction in the sky.




86
Flat Earth General / Re: If I fired a laser at a metal ball...
« on: April 19, 2013, 08:07:44 AM »
Spend $20 on a laser pointer, a torch and some mirrors.
You don't have to think about outer space to demonstrate most of this.
I've got one on my desk, and can test right here, it's really not that hard.

You can see the difference in spread of a laser beam between shining it on your wall, or a house across your street.

87
Flat Earth Debate / Red Bull Stratos
« on: April 12, 2013, 11:22:19 PM »
Hi,
Do you think the Red Bull sponsored mission to near space was a hoax?

The website is still up:
http://www.redbullstratos.com/

88
Flat Earth General / Re: GPS
« on: April 04, 2013, 11:57:43 AM »
I hope you pulled your lowest quality argument out first.

How do the radio waves bounced off the ionosphere, know whether or not they bounced off the ionosphere,
so the receiver can know how long it took to signal to arrive from the transmitter.
Because that's how GPS works you know....

89
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So... Australia is as big as Russia?
« on: April 01, 2013, 10:00:05 PM »
It's round Earth maps represented on flat paper that appear distorted.
If there was a real flat Earth and map, it would appear distorted compared to what we are used to.



One problem is Australia should appear narrower at the bottom, not wider!

90
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So... Australia is as big as Russia?
« on: March 30, 2013, 09:47:05 PM »
Even our own flat map projection severely distorts the view of continents.
Australia is very close to 4000 km wide across it's vertical centre measured East to West,
but a measurement across the same latitudinal coordinates across the bottom of
the map is much less distance due to it's proximity to the South Pole.

If the Earth is flat, and the Earth can be properly represented on a map,
the continents will appear distorted relative to what we're used to, and that's ok,
but it's still not going to happen.
One reason: In the real world we can measure distances that fall off one edge of
the flat Earth map, and enter another like Pacman does at the edge of his maze.

THe shortest path from any location to another is a segment of a complete circle around the globe.
It doesn't work on a disc.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5