Proof that Earth is not flat

Why don't you read the article before posting? eLoran isn't used actually for GPS signals. Its satellites. You know things high in the sky that a lot of people can detect but you.

That's the cover story.

As for your second point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolite This is referred to in the F.A.Q. as well. Towers DO cover the Earth, and with these towers, you can effectively achieve the exact same result. If satellites were so incredibly important, why do companies like Ericcson and Cisco spend so much money on building towers and ground-based infrastructure and not invest solely in satellites?

Let me butt in and note that you can in fact see and photograph geostationary satellites.  I've linked to a site previously that shows you exactly how to do it.  I could look for it but you probably won't read it, so why bother?

Secondly, do you mean cell phone towers?  Satellites wouldn't work well for cell phones.  It takes a lot more energy to send information all the way to a satellite than to a nearby tower, and the satellite would have to be able to handle data from however many tens of thousands of people it would be covering in an area.  They're also pretty expensive to launch.

And no, towers don't cover the earth, not the oceans, not huge remote areas.  That's a ridiculous thing to say.

Let me butt in and note that you can in fact see and photograph geostationary satellites.  I've linked to a site previously that shows you exactly how to do it.  I could look for it but you probably won't read it, so why bother?

You mean you can photograph tiny white dots in the sky can call them satellites.

Quote

Let me butt in and note that you can in fact see and photograph geostationary satellites.  I've linked to a site previously that shows you exactly how to do it.  I could look for it but you probably won't read it, so why bother?

You mean you can photograph white dots in the sky.

And calculate their height, which you're far too lazy to actually do.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2012, 02:14:47 PM

Quote

Let me butt in and note that you can in fact see and photograph geostationary satellites.  I've linked to a site previously that shows you exactly how to do it.  I could look for it but you probably won't read it, so why bother?

You mean you can photograph white dots in the sky.

And calculate their height, which you're far too lazy to actually do.

Since you have an abundance of free time to post here, perhaps you can calculate one for us.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on July 15, 2012, 02:15:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2012, 02:14:47 PM

Quote

Let me butt in and note that you can in fact see and photograph geostationary satellites.  I've linked to a site previously that shows you exactly how to do it.  I could look for it but you probably won't read it, so why bother?

You mean you can photograph white dots in the sky.

And calculate their height, which you're far too lazy to actually do.

Since you have an abundance of free time to post here, perhaps you can calculate one for us.

And get a one-line response like this one for the effort?  You'll never believe anyone else's work, and you'll never do it yourself because you're not actually interested in investigating this matter.

Also, it's already been done.  Feel free to use the search function.

And get a one-line response like this one for the effort?  You'll never believe anyone else's work, and you'll never do it yourself because you're not actually interested in investigating this matter.

Also, it's already been done.  Feel free to use the search function.

I believe in most works which aren't authored by NASA.

Show me where its been done.

It's never been done on this site.  I was thinking of the ISS, not geostationary satellites.

If you're willing to trust the data, not from NASA, on where to look to find geostationary satellites we could probably calculate their height from that.  I'd need to re-find the site, though, and once again I know all this effort will get me is a one-line response.

I'd be willing to try if people other than you are interested, though.

It's never been done on this site.  I was thinking of the ISS, not geostationary satellites.

If you're willing to trust the data, not from NASA, on where to look to find geostationary satellites we could probably calculate their height from that.  I'd need to re-find the site, though, and once again I know all this effort will get me is a one-line response.

I'd be willing to try if people other than you are interested, though.

I am extremely interested.

~D-Draw

I am extremely interested.

~D-Draw

Wonderful, we can get to work then.

Quote from: Dioptimus Drime on July 15, 2012, 02:34:52 PM

I am extremely interested.

~D-Draw

Wonderful, we can get to work then.

I eagerly await your results.

~D-Draw

I eagerly await you not being a smarmy prick.  I think we have enough of those already.

Anyway, I've tracked down the satellite photography site I linked to previously, if you'd like to have a look at it.
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/pr0106.html

I eagerly await you not being a smarmy prick.  I think we have enough of those already.

Anyway, I've tracked down the satellite photography site I linked to previously, if you'd like to have a look at it.
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/pr0106.html

I'm not being smarmy, and ad hominem is completely unnecessary. I think I'm being quite reasonable. The site you provided is about photographing satellites, not about calculating our approximate distance to them.

~D-Draw

The site you provided is about photographing satellites, not about calculating our approximate distance to them.

Amazing observation.  We can use this data to attempt to calculate their height, though.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/0106images.html Shows some satellites and a streak that's the orion nebula. The picture was taken January 3, 2001 in Kitt Peak, AZ. 

If we can find out at what angle the orion nebula was in the sky that night in Arizona we can start getting somewhere.

Quote from: Dioptimus Drime on July 15, 2012, 02:54:06 PM

The site you provided is about photographing satellites, not about calculating our approximate distance to them.

Amazing observation.  We can use this data to attempt to calculate their height, though.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/0106images.html Shows some satellites and a streak that's the orion nebula. The picture was taken January 3, 2001 in Kitt Peak, AZ. 

If we can find out at what angle the orion nebula was in the sky that night in Arizona we can start getting somewhere.

This is beyond my mathematical expertise, so if you know how to do it, I am interested to see your results.

~D-Draw

I installed stellarium, and it's telling me that on that night in Kitt Peak, Arizona, the orion nebula was at an angle of around 50 degrees when it would have been traveling nearly horizontally as shown in the picture.  At that time, it appeared almost directly south, also, so it seems that whoever took the picture did it just by pointing their camera south and letting it take a long exposure.

This is where it gets dicey, though, because I'm guessing that Tom isn't going to accept that these objects are hovering over the equator.

If Earth were not an oblate spheroid (which is the overwhelming, if not unanimous belief of the scientific community), planes would not be able to accurately gauge their location. The curvature of Earth is fundamentally crucial in plane GPS systems. If Earth were flat, GPS would be incredibly inaccurate, and planes would not reach their destination.

But planes do, therefore Earth is not flat. More information here: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html

Further proof: objects at the equator are heavier than objects elsewhere on Earth. This would not make sense in a flat-earth model, therefore Earth is not flat.

I used to use flat maps to drive around. When I got where I was trying to go using them, I didn't claim it as evidence that round earth was false.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 04:48:03 PM

If Earth were not an oblate spheroid (which is the overwhelming, if not unanimous belief of the scientific community), planes would not be able to accurately gauge their location. The curvature of Earth is fundamentally crucial in plane GPS systems. If Earth were flat, GPS would be incredibly inaccurate, and planes would not reach their destination.

But planes do, therefore Earth is not flat. More information here: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html

Further proof: objects at the equator are heavier than objects elsewhere on Earth. This would not make sense in a flat-earth model, therefore Earth is not flat.

I used to use flat maps to drive around. When I got where I was trying to go using them, I didn't claim it as evidence that round earth was false.

I would be willing to bet that it's very hard to represent a sphere on a piece of paper. So if one were to try and do it, I guess the best option would be to draw in features as close to scale as possible.

When we use charts,maps, or what ever we have to work in the math to travel in the actual direction we want because we are, of course, not traveling exactly how we are on that map or chart we use.

I poke fun at this in my other thread busting out all sorts of nonsense. In the end as a navigator the Earth can not be flat at all. Nothing would work correctly (well not everything, but a large majority of stuff would not work correctly)

But boaty, aren't you an FE proponent?

And still! We have no explanation for the huge discrepancy in the calculated distance between Sydney and Adelaide under the Flat Earth Hypothesis and the measured distance in the REAL WORLD.

Flat Earth Hypothesis? Calculated by determining the circumference of the disk at the latitude of the two cities and then the ratio of the circumference against the longitude delta between the two cities.

Flat Earth Hypothesis calculation: 1878 miles (3005 km)

Real world. Maps are published with this info. These maps are used EVERY DAY by people traveling about Australia.

Real World: 740 miles (1184 km)

I've now seen this exact post in two different threads. Word for word.

I would be willing to bet that it's very hard to represent a sphere on a piece of paper. So if one were to try and do it, I guess the best option would be to draw in features as close to scale as possible.

Precisely. The difference between the two navigation systems wouldn't affect the traveler. User locations are constantly self-correcting given whatever model you use. Compass bearings, landmarks, roads and intersections all reaffirm where we are. They are not going to notice infinitesimal distortion differences in their navigation equipment contrasted with their their trip. Same goes for using 2D map data and grafting it onto a spherical model (like Google Earth).