Proof that Earth is not flat

FYI, I removed your identical post in the other thread.  We discourage duplicate posting here.

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.

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.

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.

Incorrect. This is as biased and silly as the fellow who claimed GPS only works with satellites. Also, it does not constitute as evidence. You can not say "this would not work on a flat
Earth, because the Earth is round." You are self-validating, which is fallacious.

Well, for one, RET claims you will weigh less at the equator, not more. Second, no, that doesn't really happen. "This object weighs 0.001 here than it does on the north pole!" is not valid in any way, shape, or form.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 04:51:53 PM

FYI, I removed your identical post in the other thread.  We discourage duplicate posting here.

I had removed the sections of that post that correlated with this one. The deletion was unnecessary, as that post had entirely different content than this.

As a pilot, I should presume my expertise on the workings of GPS systems are vastly superior to yours and your claim that GPS does not rely on our accurate assessment of the curvature of Earth is, quite simply, false. I daresay you have no idea at all how aircraft GPS systems work.

My mistake, but regardless the weight changes. The difference is non-arbitrary (an object weighing 1000g at a pole will weigh roughly 996g at the equator). Do you also reject that scales work properly?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:08:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 29, 2012, 04:51:53 PM

FYI, I removed your identical post in the other thread.  We discourage duplicate posting here.

I had removed the sections of that post that correlated with this one. The deletion was unnecessary, as that post had entirely different content than this.

No, they were exactly the same (I saw them, remember?)  Also disputing moderation in this subforum is against the rules; please make a thread in Suggestions and Concerns if you wish to discuss this further.

A GPS in a car works just like GPS in a Cessna. In fact, the car GPS is more accurate. Also, an appeal to authority fallacy, and a terrible one at that.

It is assumed that because the Earth is round, the weight changes. No one has ever done a controlled experiment to test normal force changes varying from the north pole to the equator. You quite literally made it up.

No, it doesn't, which was why the fact that I understand GPS and you don't is very relevant. If we had an argument about whether or not a Greek passage said a certain thing, but only one of us spoke Greek, that person is vastly more likely to be correct.

The GPS must take into account the curvature of Earth to prevent profound inaccuracy.

It  has been done and I will find sources.

I had removed the sections of that post that correlated with this one. The deletion was unnecessary, as that post had entirely different content than this.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:28:50 PM

No, it doesn't, which was why the fact that I understand GPS and you don't is very relevant. If we had an argument about whether or not a Greek passage said a certain thing, but only one of us spoke Greek, that person is vastly more likely to be correct.

GPS' don't need to take any curvature into account. Why would they? They are simply performing advanced triangulation. Also, pilots are just glorified truck drivers. You don't know any more about how that GPS works than a man driving an 18-wheeler knows the exact operations of a diesel engine.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:28:50 PM

I had removed the sections of that post that correlated with this one. The deletion was unnecessary, as that post had entirely different content than this.

Again, please note that there is a forum for this kind of thing and consider this a warning.

Your statement about pilots is demeaning of your own character as you are clearly ignorant to the knowledge that pilots must have to operate their navigation systems (which work far differently than you seem to think). This is irrelevant to the argument, just wanted to make the statement.

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:39:22 PM

Your statement about pilots is demeaning of your own character as you are clearly ignorant to the knowledge that pilots must have to operate their navigation systems (which work far differently than you seem to think). This is irrelevant to the argument, just wanted to make the statement.

The only evidence you have provided so far seems to comprise of "I know more than you do" and "you're just wrong!" Fascinating, to say the least.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 06:44:33 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:39:22 PM

Your statement about pilots is demeaning of your own character as you are clearly ignorant to the knowledge that pilots must have to operate their navigation systems (which work far differently than you seem to think). This is irrelevant to the argument, just wanted to make the statement.

The only evidence you have provided so far seems to comprise of "I know more than you do" and "you're just wrong!" Fascinating, to say the least.

My statement that triangulation works differently on a spheroid than a flat surface, and the fact that GPS systems use triangulation is not evidence? You admitted yourself that GPS systems use triangulation. Are you arguing with geometric fact?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:47:10 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 06:44:33 PM

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 06:39:22 PM

Your statement about pilots is demeaning of your own character as you are clearly ignorant to the knowledge that pilots must have to operate their navigation systems (which work far differently than you seem to think). This is irrelevant to the argument, just wanted to make the statement.

The only evidence you have provided so far seems to comprise of "I know more than you do" and "you're just wrong!" Fascinating, to say the least.

My statement that triangulation works differently on a spheroid than a flat surface, and the fact that GPS systems use triangulation is not evidence? You admitted yourself that GPS systems use triangulation. Are you arguing with geometric fact?

The triangulation does not require any supposed curvature. That is why it is called triangulation, it uses trigonometry. Good luck finding the very sought after "curved triangle".

Good luck finding the very sought after "curved triangle".

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 06:52:10 PM

Good luck finding the very sought after "curved triangle".

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

Quote from: Nolhekh on June 29, 2012, 07:39:40 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 06:52:10 PM

Good luck finding the very sought after "curved triangle".

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

Ah, so the GPS satellites use signals that go straight through the Earth? Are you sure you know what you posted?

GPS' don't need to take any curvature into account. Why would they? They are simply performing advanced triangulation.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 06:33:58 PM

GPS' don't need to take any curvature into account. Why would they? They are simply performing advanced triangulation.

Just as an FYI, GPS does not use triangulation.  It uses trilateration. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration

Are you a proponent of FET?

Quote from: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 09:02:00 PM

Are you a proponent of FET?

I'm a proponent of the truth.

This is as biased and silly as the fellow who claimed GPS only works with satellites

It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.

Quote from: Art on July 13, 2012, 09:06:15 PM

It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.

And the sea.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on July 14, 2012, 01:43:28 AM

Quote from: Art on July 13, 2012, 09:06:15 PM

It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.

And the sea.

If I remember correctly, FE has said (Tom more specifically, dont quote me on that can't remember exactly) that the LORAN-C towers where used. That is flase though because LORAN-C towers are all shut down and not in use anymore (at least in the united states)

DGPS does use any tower that can receive and send a signal to give a more accurate position. Still, GPS is a pretty straight forward system. Not hard to see how it works and why it must use satellites.

Among the IAT’s key findings: “eLoran is the only cost-effective backup for national needs; it is completely interoperable with and independent of GPS, with different propagation and failure mechanisms, plus significantly superior robustness to radio frequency interference and jamming.”

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on July 14, 2012, 01:47:45 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on July 14, 2012, 01:43:28 AM

Quote from: Art on July 13, 2012, 09:06:15 PM

It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.

And the sea.

If I remember correctly, FE has said (Tom more specifically, dont quote me on that can't remember exactly) that the LORAN-C towers where used. That is flase though because LORAN-C towers are all shut down and not in use anymore (at least in the united states)

DGPS does use any tower that can receive and send a signal to give a more accurate position. Still, GPS is a pretty straight forward system. Not hard to see how it works and why it must use satellites.

Loran-C was decommissioned and was likely upgraded to eLoran, which can simulate GPS signals.

http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1571

Quote

Among the IAT’s key findings: “eLoran is the only cost-effective backup for national needs; it is completely interoperable with and independent of GPS, with different propagation and failure mechanisms, plus significantly superior robustness to radio frequency interference and jamming.”

It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.