Distance and math

  • 83 Replies
  • 13846 Views
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2008, 07:38:37 PM »




The only problem is that in RADARs the signal has to come back to the receiver.
Your mother.

?

spacemanjones

  • 281
  • Magic pushes earth
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2008, 07:53:50 PM »


The only problem is that in RADARs the signal has to come back to the receiver.
[/quote]

The main problem with Weather radar and ducting is there will me a thunderstorm out there and the radar will duct which will cut it short. The radar doesn't know this and it will show no thunderstorm, and the image will show all clear. A quick view at a visible Sat shot, IR or even local obervations will clearly show there is something there . Usually this will occur when a strong inversion sets up and forms what I guess you could say is a wall that the radar beam bounces off of. It's not common but does happen.

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #62 on: September 14, 2008, 07:56:05 PM »
The main problem with Weather radar and ducting is there will me a thunderstorm out there and the radar will duct which will cut it short. The radar doesn't know this and it will show no thunderstorm, and the image will show all clear. A quick view at a visible Sat shot, IR or even local obervations will clearly show there is something there . Usually this will occur when a strong inversion sets up and forms what I guess you could say is a wall that the radar beam bounces off of. It's not common but does happen.

Please follow what we are discussing here. The RADAR issue occured as a way od directly measuring distances between points on the surface of the Earth. Also, the picture you posted is from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - a government agency.
Your mother.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #63 on: September 14, 2008, 07:56:54 PM »
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Where's the evidence?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42705
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #64 on: September 14, 2008, 08:12:04 PM »
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Where's the evidence?

Well, how about the fact that since there are no accurate FE maps of the world, people who need to navigate around the world use RE based (spherical) maps (quite effectively, I might add). 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #65 on: September 14, 2008, 08:14:01 PM »
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Where's the evidence?

Well, how about the fact that since there are no accurate FE maps of the world, people who need to navigate around the world use RE based (spherical) maps (quite effectively, I might add). 

But, maps are flat.
Your mother.

?

spacemanjones

  • 281
  • Magic pushes earth
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #66 on: September 14, 2008, 08:14:27 PM »
The main problem with Weather radar and ducting is there will me a thunderstorm out there and the radar will duct which will cut it short. The radar doesn't know this and it will show no thunderstorm, and the image will show all clear. A quick view at a visible Sat shot, IR or even local obervations will clearly show there is something there . Usually this will occur when a strong inversion sets up and forms what I guess you could say is a wall that the radar beam bounces off of. It's not common but does happen.

Please follow what we are discussing here. The RADAR issue occured as a way od directly measuring distances between points on the surface of the Earth. Also, the picture you posted is from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - a government agency.

Maybe I misread something... you said the beam doesn't curve out of the radar, I was just showing you it does.

I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Where's the evidence?

Maybe you should read this thread over again and "Lurk" more... I have read several post from people whose daily lives/jobs revolve around navigating using spherical math.


?

spacemanjones

  • 281
  • Magic pushes earth
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #67 on: September 14, 2008, 08:17:42 PM »
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Where's the evidence?

Well, how about the fact that since there are no accurate FE maps of the world, people who need to navigate around the world use RE based (spherical) maps (quite effectively, I might add). 

But, maps are flat.

Yep they sure are... . Soccer balls are spheres but this picture is flat. Are the flat or spheres?


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42705
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #68 on: September 14, 2008, 08:17:51 PM »
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Where's the evidence?

Well, how about the fact that since there are no accurate FE maps of the world, people who need to navigate around the world use RE based (spherical) maps (quite effectively, I might add). 

But, maps are flat.

Maps are drawn on paper.  Paper is flat.  Coincidence or conspiracy? 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #69 on: September 14, 2008, 08:21:52 PM »
Well, how about the fact that since there are no accurate FE maps of the world, people who need to navigate around the world use RE based (spherical) maps (quite effectively, I might add). 
Your mother.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42705
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #70 on: September 14, 2008, 08:35:30 PM »
Well, how about the fact that since there are no accurate FE maps of the world, people who need to navigate around the world use RE based (spherical) maps (quite effectively, I might add). 

I'm sorry, were you trying to make a point there?  A spherical projection onto a flat surface is nothing new. 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #71 on: September 14, 2008, 08:37:10 PM »
Well, how about the fact that since there are no accurate FE maps of the world, people who need to navigate around the world use RE based (spherical) maps (quite effectively, I might add). 

I'm sorry, were you trying to make a point there?  A spherical projection onto a flat surface is nothing new. 

And also does not give correct distances.
Your mother.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42705
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #72 on: September 14, 2008, 08:47:49 PM »
Well, how about the fact that since there are no accurate FE maps of the world, people who need to navigate around the world use RE based (spherical) maps (quite effectively, I might add). 

I'm sorry, were you trying to make a point there?  A spherical projection onto a flat surface is nothing new. 

And also does not give correct distances.

It does when you adjust the scale accordingly.  Variable scales are nothing new either.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #73 on: September 14, 2008, 08:49:55 PM »
Well, how about the fact that since there are no accurate FE maps of the world, people who need to navigate around the world use RE based (spherical) maps (quite effectively, I might add). 

I'm sorry, were you trying to make a point there?  A spherical projection onto a flat surface is nothing new. 

And also does not give correct distances.

It does when you adjust the scale accordingly.  Variable scales are nothing new either.

No, it does not. You would have to change the scale as you go from up to down.
Your mother.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42705
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #74 on: September 14, 2008, 08:55:38 PM »
Well, how about the fact that since there are no accurate FE maps of the world, people who need to navigate around the world use RE based (spherical) maps (quite effectively, I might add). 

I'm sorry, were you trying to make a point there?  A spherical projection onto a flat surface is nothing new. 

And also does not give correct distances.

It does when you adjust the scale accordingly.  Variable scales are nothing new either.

No, it does not. You would have to change the scale as you go from up to down.

Just like in a Mercator projection?

Quote from: http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/mapproj/mapproj_f.html
The Mercator projection has straight meridians and parallels that intersect at right angles. Scale is true at the equator or at two standard parallels equidistant from the equator. The projection is often used for marine navigation because all straight lines on the map are lines of constant azimuth.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #75 on: September 14, 2008, 08:57:33 PM »
No, it does not. You would have to change the scale as you go from up to down.

Just like in a Mercator projection?

Quote from: http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/mapproj/mapproj_f.html
The Mercator projection has straight meridians and parallels that intersect at right angles. Scale is true at the equator or at two standard parallels equidistant from the equator. The projection is often used for marine navigation because all straight lines on the map are lines of constant azimuth.

Lol, you contradicted yourself with your own quote. Have a nice warm cup of ...
Your mother.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42705
Re: Distance and math
« Reply #76 on: September 14, 2008, 09:01:50 PM »
No, it does not. You would have to change the scale as you go from up to down.

Just like in a Mercator projection?

Quote from: http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/mapproj/mapproj_f.html
The Mercator projection has straight meridians and parallels that intersect at right angles. Scale is true at the equator or at two standard parallels equidistant from the equator. The projection is often used for marine navigation because all straight lines on the map are lines of constant azimuth.

Lol, you contradicted yourself with your own quote. Have a nice warm cup of ...

I have?  ???  In a Mercator projection, the scale varies depending on the latitude, hence a variable scale.  I see no contradiction.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #77 on: September 14, 2008, 09:03:44 PM »
No, it does not. You would have to change the scale as you go from up to down.

Just like in a Mercator projection?

Quote from: http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/mapproj/mapproj_f.html
The Mercator projection has straight meridians and parallels that intersect at right angles. Scale is true at the equator or at two standard parallels equidistant from the equator. The projection is often used for marine navigation because all straight lines on the map are lines of constant azimuth.

Lol, you contradicted yourself with your own quote. Have a nice warm cup of ...

I have?  ???  In a Mercator projection, the scale varies depending on the latitude, hence a variable scale.  I see no contradiction.

Ok. Thank you for enlightening me. You are right. I am wrong.
Your mother.

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #78 on: September 15, 2008, 05:09:38 AM »
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Where's the evidence?

Like I said:

What sort of evidence would you like? How about a list of shippings and flights that arrived on time? Or a list of railways that were built that weren't held up by ordering the wrong amount of track? Or maps of deep-sea fibre-optic cables that were the correct length?

Would any of these do as proof? Because I'm not going to bother finding them if you'll just reject them as some mad "conspiracy".

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #79 on: September 15, 2008, 08:43:46 AM »
This means that 48 miles are visible, which is only possible if the Earth is flat.

Um, how is this only possible on FE?  A ship located in the middle of the strait will easily have 24 miles of radar search.  Especially when you consider the fact that the antenna is located over 50 feet above sea level.

According to RE model, an object that is h feet high can be seen from at most s miles on the surface of the Earth, such that:
h = 2*s2/3
so, a 50 ft high antenna can have a range of only √(50 3 / 2) = 8.7 miles or 7.6 nautical miles. That's quite smaller than what you stated as evidence. I'm afraid your data is in favor of Flat Earth Theory.

You are correct.  The radar horizon for an antenna 50 feet high is 8.3 nautical miles (nm) roughly.  Of course, if the antenna is 100 feet, which isn't unreasonable for your typical merchant vessel, that value is now more than 11 nm.  That is to detect a target that has no height.  If you are trying to detect a ship, that gives you a detection range of around 20 nm.

For heights of land, that gives you longer detection ranges.  If you look at the topography at Gibraltar or Dover, there is terrain that that is more than 100 feet high to reflect the radar signal back to the antenna.

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #80 on: September 15, 2008, 08:44:26 AM »
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Where's the evidence?

What do you consider evidence?

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #81 on: September 15, 2008, 08:47:54 AM »
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Where's the evidence?

What do you consider evidence?

I'm going to have to get on this train, too.  I'm not going to keep wasting time arguing what should be a simple point until I get a clear-cut definition of what makes valid evidence.

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #82 on: September 16, 2008, 05:04:32 AM »

Re: Distance and math
« Reply #83 on: September 17, 2008, 10:26:44 AM »
I still don't see any evidence that spherical math is accurate for distances.

Where's the evidence?

You still have yet to answer the question about what you would consider valid evidence, since apparently first hand observations are not considered evidence to you.