Flight durations vs distances

  • 162 Replies
  • 21950 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #120 on: November 02, 2015, 10:00:59 AM »
Quote
So, you're incapable of anything that isn't a bastardization of what I'm saying, I see.
"all a theory needs is to describe observations" - What are you saying then?

I'm saying just that. You've apparently twisted it, in your normal fashion, into "We must directly observe, with our own eyes, every single aspect of a theory, right down to the core of the Earth. if we do not, there's no reason to accept it."
Bullshit, like usual, from you.
I am referring to "the same object" that you want me to prove. Isn't my ability "to describe observations" sufficient?

Per your post in the "FE model - Height of Sun and Moon" thread:
Quote
People have seen brains. So what? They have not seen yours. Again, do they need to directly observe yours, or could they just deduce from what they know the consequence of a brain to be?
Do I need to directly observe "the same object"? Can I "deduce from what we know" that THOUSANDS of dishes are pointing to the same part of the sky at very high angles (42°-50°), and probably not at THOUSANDS of objects but a single one? This object, based on the angles from the THOUSANDS of dishes is FAR away (35,000+ km)? The "consequence" of that object is that we have been to outer space. This disproves UFET and DET models.

You really are just a moron aren't you?
You are proposing an EXCLUSIVE explanation. I am proposing a POSSIBLE explanation. Try to use that non-existent brain of yours just a little AND JUSTIFY YOUR FUCKING CLAIMS RATHER THAN SPENDING AGES WHINGING AND EVADING THE VERY BASIC QUESTION

The situation you're describing is completely different to the one we're in here, can you really not see that?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #121 on: November 02, 2015, 12:36:11 PM »
Obviously, from all my posts, I am not a moron. Name calling is childish.

So that you don't provide any proof of the Earth/Moon in the Earth and Aether, you come up with these arguments:
Quote
"all a theory needs is to describe observations"
Quote
could they just deduce from what they know the consequence of a brain to be?
When I apply these arguments to Satellite Dish TV, you get upset.
Quote
You are proposing an EXCLUSIVE explanation. I am proposing a POSSIBLE explanation.
I am proposing real life (reality - what really happens). You are proposing fiction/fantasy (possibility).
Quote
A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
Quote
fiction - a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.
fantasy - the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
Actually, since your DE is not tested with verified, proved factors and backed by evidence - it is not a theory. Since your DE is not testable or falsifiable, it is not even a hypothesis. That leaves it to be either fiction or fantasy. Therefore, we need to lower your lofty DET to being DEF. I will refer to it as such until some evidence or something testable/falsifiable shows up. Thank you for your clarification.
Quote
The situation you're describing is completely different to the one we're in here, can you really not see that?
Obviously not... I want evidence and you want evidence...
How are they different? That I am describing something real and you are not?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #122 on: November 03, 2015, 08:32:41 AM »
Obviously, from all my posts, I am a moron.
Fixed

Quote
So that you don't provide any proof of the Earth/Moon in the Earth and Aether, you come up with these arguments:
Quote
"all a theory needs is to describe observations"
Quote
could they just deduce from what they know the consequence of a brain to be?
When I apply these arguments to Satellite Dish TV, you get upset.
Because you are not remotely applying what I say. You are mounting a proof by contradiction against my model, in which case you need to justify and demonstrate all of what you say is true, in the dish TV case. In my case, I am simply explaining a model to you: treat it as a hypothesis is that makes your deficient brain cope any better.

Quote
I am proposing real life (reality - what really happens). You are proposing fiction/fantasy (possibility).
Further evidence of your reliance on circular arguments and unjustified claims.

Quote
Since your DE is not testable or falsifiable, it is not even a hypothesis.
Bullshit. You really haven't even tried to learn the model have you? Given it makes statements about the world, it is very much testable. Given it explains everything as RET does, it is just as much a theory: and given it explains it better with fewer assumptions, it's preferred.

Quote
Obviously not... I want evidence and you want evidence...
How are they different? That I am describing something real and you are not?
Because, fuckwit, demonstrating that something is the case, and demonstrating something is not the case, ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #123 on: November 03, 2015, 08:59:20 AM »
Obviously, from all my posts, I am a moron.
Fixed

Quote
So that you don't provide any proof of the Earth/Moon in the Earth and Aether, you come up with these arguments:
Quote
"all a theory needs is to describe observations"
Quote
could they just deduce from what they know the consequence of a brain to be?
When I apply these arguments to Satellite Dish TV, you get upset.
Because you are not remotely applying what I say. You are mounting a proof by contradiction against my model, in which case you need to justify and demonstrate all of what you say is true, in the dish TV case. In my case, I am simply explaining a model to you: treat it as a hypothesis is that makes your deficient brain cope any better.

Quote
I am proposing real life (reality - what really happens). You are proposing fiction/fantasy (possibility).
Further evidence of your reliance on circular arguments and unjustified claims.

Quote
Since your DE is not testable or falsifiable, it is not even a hypothesis.
Bullshit. You really haven't even tried to learn the model have you? Given it makes statements about the world, it is very much testable. Given it explains everything as RET does, it is just as much a theory: and given it explains it better with fewer assumptions, it's preferred.

Quote
Obviously not... I want evidence and you want evidence...
How are they different? That I am describing something real and you are not?
Because, fuckwit, demonstrating that something is the case, and demonstrating something is not the case, ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
You need to explain how you think satellite tv works with examples of dish angles and transmitter locations.  Where do installers get details from?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #124 on: November 03, 2015, 09:19:28 AM »
You need to explain how you think satellite tv works with examples of dish angles and transmitter locations.  Where do installers get details from?
I'm not playing your games any more. I've answered your question, and left it at the point where it is trivially simple for you to figure out the rest if you would be willing to think. But never mind.
I will answer your question when, and only when, you answer mine:

How do you prove your claim that the transmitters must be in space?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #125 on: November 03, 2015, 09:23:05 AM »
You need to explain how you think satellite tv works with examples of dish angles and transmitter locations.  Where do installers get details from?

You need to quit derailing threads.  You can't just make every thread about what you want it to be about.  We do have rules here, even though they are loosely enforced.  Don't you remember getting warnings, muted, and bans?  Perhaps you are incorrigible? 

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #126 on: November 03, 2015, 10:14:13 AM »
Honestly, I don't need to be insulted by you. I feel sorry for you if you need that to make you feel better about yourself.

I have treated your DEF as a hypothesis. It fails in telescope alignment because telescopes can not point in 2 directions at the same time unless they are on a round Earth. I do not need to disprove it further. As I have pointed out, studying DEF for a thousand years will not change the fact that it is FLAT. That is the flaw. THAT is why it fails. THAT is why DEF is disproved. THAT is why ANY FE model is disproved.

"Given it makes statements about the world, it is very much testable." like what for instance? Actually, it doesn't matter. If it can't align very real telescopes, who cares what it might do - if it can do anything (see my "Life Style" thread).

If you are not going to prove something "IS the case" - Sun/Moon in Earth and/or Aether, then I am not going to prove something "IS NOT the case" ?? ... wait correction... "IS the case" - all dishes point at the same object. I'm sorry, how are any of these different ("IS NOT the case")?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #127 on: November 03, 2015, 11:24:46 AM »
I have treated your DEF as a hypothesis. It fails in telescope alignment because telescopes can not point in 2 directions at the same time unless they are on a round Earth. I do not need to disprove it further.
Well that argument still fails, and you clearly do as that's what you're doing here.
 
Quote
"Given it makes statements about the world, it is very much testable." like what for instance?
So you're illiterate as well as stupid and egotistical. Stop plugging your own threads.

Quote
If you are not going to prove something "IS the case" - Sun/Moon in Earth and/or Aether, then I am not going to prove something "IS NOT the case" ?? ... wait correction... "IS the case" - all dishes point at the same object. I'm sorry, how are any of these different ("IS NOT the case")?
Are you really that much of a moron?
You are trying to prove FET false, I am trying to prove it possible. That's how this conversation is going. When you understand logic, come back.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #128 on: November 03, 2015, 12:34:42 PM »
You need to explain how you think satellite tv works with examples of dish angles and transmitter locations.  Where do installers get details from?

You need to quit derailing threads.  You can't just make every thread about what you want it to be about.  We do have rules here, even though they are loosely enforced.  Don't you remember getting warnings, muted, and bans?  Perhaps you are incorrigible?
JRS seems keen to discuss here.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #129 on: November 03, 2015, 01:05:13 PM »
You need to explain how you think satellite tv works with examples of dish angles and transmitter locations.  Where do installers get details from?
I'm not playing your games any more. I've answered your question, and left it at the point where it is trivially simple for you to figure out the rest if you would be willing to think. But never mind.
I will answer your question when, and only when, you answer mine:

How do you prove your claim that the transmitters must be in space?
By showing that the elevation and azimuth from multiple locations is consistent with calculations based on a round earth and geosynchronous satellites as used by installers.

Please continue in the About GPS subject.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #130 on: November 03, 2015, 04:21:40 PM »
Quote
Quote
I have treated your DEF as a hypothesis. It fails in telescope alignment because telescopes can not point in 2 directions at the same time unless they are on a round Earth. I do not need to disprove it further.
Well that argument still fails, and you clearly do as that's what you're doing here.
You state it fails (another unproven statement like those you make all the time). It does not fail. Just because you don't understand astronomy (aligning telescopes) does not make it untrue. I provided real numbers based on real telescopes. You provide, as usual, nothing. You just hand-wave it away "it fails". Total BS.
Quote
Quote
"Given it makes statements about the world, it is very much testable." like what for instance?
So you're illiterate as well as stupid and egotistical. Stop plugging your own threads.
Only insults. That is what you are only capable of. Unproven statements. It is tiring arguing with a troll that just makes random statements as fact.

"illiterate - unable to read or write." obviously a lie or you don't know the meaning of the word.
"stupid - lacking intelligence or common sense." another lie or you don't know the meaning of the word.
"egotistical - excessively conceited or absorbed in oneself; self-centered." your proof? Another vague false word usage.

Just random untrue statements. If you lie about these, why should we consider anything you say as true... and you wanted to know why "PM me" doesn't work. I said the Student had to TRUST the Master. I didn't trust you then and I certainly wouldn't trust you now. No one should.
Quote
Quote
If you are not going to prove something "IS the case" - Sun/Moon in Earth and/or Aether, then I am not going to prove something "IS NOT the case" ?? ... wait correction... "IS the case" - all dishes point at the same object. I'm sorry, how are any of these different ("IS NOT the case")?
Are you really that much of a moron?
You are trying to prove FET false, I am trying to prove it possible. That's how this conversation is going. When you understand logic, come back.
Correction, I PROVED UFET and DEF false. Your trying to prove it possible is worthless and a waste of time BECAUSE it is FLAT. I am quite logical. You're the one throwing tantrums with your insults.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #131 on: November 03, 2015, 04:52:17 PM »
OK, here it is - your proof that satellite dishes are point at the same object. I am using towns at the 97° longitude to make this a 2D trigonometric problem:

Satellite:
  • Galaxy 19
  • latitude, longitude (0°, 96.96° W)
Victoria, TX:
  • latitude, longitude (28.8169° N, 96.9933° W)
  • dish angle, north alignment (56.441°, 179.93°)
  • Geosynchronous distance = 42,601 km
Augusta, KS:
  • latitude, longitude (37.6925° N, 96.9800° W)
  • dish angle, north alignment (46.382°, 179.97°)
  • Geosynchronous distance = 42,572 km
Grand Forks, ND:
  • latitude, longitude (47.9253° N, 97.0325° W)
  • dish angle, north alignment (35.034°, 179.90°)
  • Geosynchronous distance = 42,559 km
These are all within 42 km. The 3 dishes are pointing at the same object. It is not a bird, balloon or plane 42,000+ km in the sky.

The other satellites in the area:
  • 98.39 W Inmarsat, approximately 1060 km away from Galaxy 19
  • 96.19 W Echostar 6, approximately 570 km away from Galaxy 19
These are MUCH farther than 42 km away. The dishes are not pointing at any other satellite.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #132 on: November 04, 2015, 09:48:34 AM »
Quote
By showing that the elevation and azimuth from multiple locations is consistent with calculations based on a round earth and geosynchronous satellites as used by installers.
So, assuming it? Showing something is possible is not the same as showing it is true.

Quote
Just because you don't understand astronomy (aligning telescopes) does not make it untrue.
You have consistently and repeatedly and openly ignored my refutation of your bullshit argument. Claim it's true all you want, the thread's there for everyone to say. You have not once addressed it. All you do is whine I don't accept the RE model.

Quote
and you wanted to know why "PM me" doesn't work. I said the Student had to TRUST the Master. I didn't trust you then and I certainly wouldn't trust you now. No one should.
And you were also told why that was not required and why eveyr objection you had was no more than the paranoid shit I've come to expect from you, but sure, keep on lying. All you're good for.

Quote
These are all within 42 km. The 3 dishes are pointing at the same object. It is not a bird, balloon or plane 42,000+ km in the sky.
We seem to have very different definitions of 'proof'. Yours is apparently just stating that they're all pointing at the same object. How does that prove a damn thing?!
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #133 on: November 04, 2015, 09:51:55 AM »
Quote
By showing that the elevation and azimuth from multiple locations is consistent with calculations based on a round earth and geosynchronous satellites as used by installers.
So, assuming it? Showing something is possible is not the same as showing it is true.

Quote
Just because you don't understand astronomy (aligning telescopes) does not make it untrue.
You have consistently and repeatedly and openly ignored my refutation of your bullshit argument. Claim it's true all you want, the thread's there for everyone to say. You have not once addressed it. All you do is whine I don't accept the RE model.

Quote
and you wanted to know why "PM me" doesn't work. I said the Student had to TRUST the Master. I didn't trust you then and I certainly wouldn't trust you now. No one should.
And you were also told why that was not required and why eveyr objection you had was no more than the paranoid shit I've come to expect from you, but sure, keep on lying. All you're good for.

Quote
These are all within 42 km. The 3 dishes are pointing at the same object. It is not a bird, balloon or plane 42,000+ km in the sky.
We seem to have very different definitions of 'proof'. Yours is apparently just stating that they're all pointing at the same object. How does that prove a damn thing?!
What would you accept as proof?  Have you spoken to anyone in the industry?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #134 on: November 04, 2015, 10:05:48 AM »
What would you accept as proof?  Have you spoken to anyone in the industry?
Now you don't even know what justification is...
I am getting sick of your evasion.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #135 on: November 04, 2015, 12:53:25 PM »
Quote
Showing something is possible is not the same as showing it is true.
Does this apply to DEF?
Quote
Quote
Just because you don't understand astronomy (aligning telescopes) does not make it untrue.
You have consistently and repeatedly and openly ignored my refutation of your bullshit argument. Claim it's true all you want, the thread's there for everyone to say. You have not once addressed it. All you do is whine I don't accept the RE model.
Your argument is that because your model is FLAT, it somehow makes the sky different. We need to measure the sky differently. When asked how (because mathematically, we can convert one set of coordinates to another), you provide no new set of coordinates - just that they exist.

I have pointed out, which you do not understand, that the coordinates DON'T MATTER. If the sky rotates (which we observe with the Sun, Moon and stars), then it has an AXIS. This is a geometric property for rotating objects. For a telescope to track the sky with 1 motor, it MUST be parallel to that AXIS. There are no coordinates involved here. On a FLAT disk (UFET, DEF, whatever), the AXIS is defined by the N. and S. Pole. On a FLAT disk, EVERYWHERE, the mount MUST point straight up/down. It doesn't.

Stop hand-waving and making vague statements and show me - show EVERYONE - why I am wrong.
Quote
Quote
and you wanted to know why "PM me" doesn't work. I said the Student had to TRUST the Master. I didn't trust you then and I certainly wouldn't trust you now. No one should
.
And you were also told why that was not required and why every objection you had was no more than the paranoid shit I've come to expect from you, but sure, keep on lying. All you're good for.
When you speak lies about me as made clear ("illiterate"/"stupid" and others in various posts) why should I trust you? Why should anyone? The "PM me" method is basically Master/Student. The Student must trust the Master. I don't.
Quote
Quote
These are all within 42 km. The 3 dishes are pointing at the same object. It is not a bird, balloon or plane 42,000+ km in the sky.
We seem to have very different definitions of 'proof'. Yours is apparently just stating that they're all pointing at the same object. How does that prove a damn thing?!
The "damn thing" is they are all point 42,000+ km in the sky. This is in outer space. This disproves UFET with its 5000 km dome.

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.
Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.
Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.
They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.
If you went 42,000+ km up, your last plane journey would be in space.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #136 on: November 05, 2015, 01:16:44 AM »
What would you accept as proof?  Have you spoken to anyone in the industry?
Now you don't even know what justification is...
I am getting sick of your evasion.
Evasion of what?  The operation of GPS and satellite communication including broadcast TV is documented and proven.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #137 on: November 05, 2015, 10:52:24 AM »
Quote
Stop hand-waving and making vague statements and show me - show EVERYONE - why I am wrong.
Done in the relevant thread. Stop throwing tantrums and stay on topic for once.

Quote
Does this apply to DEF?
In the right context, yes. If I'm trying to demonstrate something as true, yes. At present I am demonstrating it's possible: a necessary first step, and all i need to do when you are insisting otherwise. Still struggling with logic?

Quote
The "PM me" method is basically Master/Student. The Student must trust the Master. I don't.
Paranoid bullshit. It has been explained to you why this is not so, given the fact we have an open forum.

Quote
The "damn thing" is they are all point 42,000+ km in the sky.
They're pointing along a line. Just because those lines intersect doesn't prove they're pointing at an object there you shit-throwing toddler.

Quote
Evasion of what?  The operation of GPS and satellite communication including broadcast TV is documented and proven.
THEN FUCKING PROVE THAT THE TRANSMITTERS ARE IN SPACE
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #138 on: November 05, 2015, 10:56:33 AM »
Quote
Stop hand-waving and making vague statements and show me - show EVERYONE - why I am wrong.
Done in the relevant thread. Stop throwing tantrums and stay on topic for once.

Quote
Does this apply to DEF?
In the right context, yes. If I'm trying to demonstrate something as true, yes. At present I am demonstrating it's possible: a necessary first step, and all i need to do when you are insisting otherwise. Still struggling with logic?

Quote
The "PM me" method is basically Master/Student. The Student must trust the Master. I don't.
Paranoid bullshit. It has been explained to you why this is not so, given the fact we have an open forum.

Quote
The "damn thing" is they are all point 42,000+ km in the sky.
They're pointing along a line. Just because those lines intersect doesn't prove they're pointing at an object there you shit-throwing toddler.

Quote
Evasion of what?  The operation of GPS and satellite communication including broadcast TV is documented and proven.
THEN FUCKING PROVE THAT THE TRANSMITTERS ARE IN SPACE
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!
Why the personal abuse?

The proof has been shown with the formulas to calculate the elevation and azimuth of a satellite tv dish.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #139 on: November 05, 2015, 11:03:20 AM »
Why the personal abuse?

The proof has been shown with the formulas to calculate the elevation and azimuth of a satellite tv dish.
Seven pages and REers still refuse to provide an argument. I am entitled to frustration. Those formulas have been shown to be bullshit until you can demonstrate rather than presuppose the dishes are pointed at the same object, but when has truth ever stopped you?

Again, JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIMS
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #140 on: November 05, 2015, 11:08:00 AM »
Why the personal abuse?

The proof has been shown with the formulas to calculate the elevation and azimuth of a satellite tv dish.
Seven pages and REers still refuse to provide an argument. I am entitled to frustration. Those formulas have been shown to be bullshit until you can demonstrate rather than presuppose the dishes are pointed at the same object, but when has truth ever stopped you?

Again, JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIMS
Because the formulas for a particular broadcast satellite are based on a single location above the equator and are used to align dishes accurately.  Ask an installer.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #141 on: November 05, 2015, 11:09:42 AM »
Because the formulas for a particular broadcast satellite are based on a single location above the equator and are used to align dishes accurately.  Ask an installer.
Circular.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #142 on: November 05, 2015, 11:14:37 AM »
Because the formulas for a particular broadcast satellite are based on a single location above the equator and are used to align dishes accurately.  Ask an installer.
Circular.
No, absolute proof of the location of transmitters.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #143 on: November 05, 2015, 11:23:25 AM »
Because the formulas for a particular broadcast satellite are based on a single location above the equator and are used to align dishes accurately.  Ask an installer.
Circular.
No, absolute proof of the location of transmitters.

"They're based on the same location because they're based on a single location and because I say so."
Nope, still circular. Evidence please. Just because someone tells you something doesn't make it true.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #144 on: November 05, 2015, 11:34:22 AM »
Because the formulas for a particular broadcast satellite are based on a single location above the equator and are used to align dishes accurately.  Ask an installer.
Circular.
No, absolute proof of the location of transmitters.

"They're based on the same location because they're based on a single location and because I say so."
Nope, still circular. Evidence please. Just because someone tells you something doesn't make it true.
The industry sets up dishes using a formula with a single location for a service.  Unless you can show otherwise.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #145 on: November 05, 2015, 01:38:56 PM »
Quote
Quote
Stop hand-waving and making vague statements and show me - show EVERYONE - why I am wrong.
Done in the relevant thread. Stop throwing tantrums and stay on topic for once.
It is not done - another vague and untrue statement. Fine, we will discuss further in another thread. BTW, I will stop trying to justify my statements. I will, just like you, just make vague but true statements. They require much less effort - see my signature.
Quote
Quote
Does this apply to DEF?
In the right context, yes. If I'm trying to demonstrate something as true, yes. At present I am demonstrating it's possible: a necessary first step, and all i need to do when you are insisting otherwise. Still struggling with logic?
In the "Life Style" thread, ALL you were arguing was that DEF was "the truth" - it had no practical value and didn't need it. So, even if you can demonstrate DEF is possible (with 2 unproven assumptions building on each other - Sun/Earth in center of Earth and Aether), why is it "the truth". RET has been demonstrated more than possible and FEers don't believe it is "the truth".
Quote
Quote
The "damn thing" is they are all point 42,000+ km in the sky.
They're pointing along a line. Just because those lines intersect doesn't prove they're pointing at an object there you shit-throwing toddler.
(http://www.ctcameraeye.com/?p=1191) they exist.
OK, I am done wasting my time making calculations for trolls like you. This is plain trolling now. I have provided my proof. I will use your BS argument - "Poor me, I don't have the time or resources" to prove it.

I have proved within 42/42,0000 km (i.e. 0.1%) that this is a REAL object. UFET after YEARS SAYS the SUN/MOON are 5000-6000 km (1/10th the distance and 1000/5000 = 20%, 1000/6000 = 17% off) and that has been sufficient. Hell, they don't even know where the Sun/Moon are in the sky on their model with any certainty. Your DEF postulates a Sun/Moon in the Earth without ANY REAL proof (zero measurements - infinite% off). I am done with your trolling.

I live in the REAL world not some make believe DE fiction/fantasy (DEF) world of yours.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #146 on: November 06, 2015, 04:00:13 PM »
Quote
The industry sets up dishes using a formula with a single location for a service.  Unless you can show otherwise.
Still not how it works. What the [expletive] is wrong with you?! You are making the argument, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. Until you do that, my objection stands and you can [expletive] with your pathetic argument and constant evasion EVERY [expletive] TIME I ask you to justify it.

Quote
I will stop trying to justify my statements. I will, just like you, just make vague but true statements.
So, evasion, as per usual. And of course your usual tack of complete dishonesty. I justify what I say when it's possible (I don't feel like outling the DE model and justifications, several pages, every single time I make a post), but more often than not that remains irrelevant because what I am doing is responding to objections. It is not necessary in every single case to supply evidence, because to refute a claim of impossibility, I have only to show that it is possible.
You have been told this before, and if you weren't such a [expletive]you should know this already, but instead you made [expletive] claims that all situations are somehow equivalent when anyone with a brain would know that's not true.

Quote
In the "Life Style" thread,
Stop plugging your own threads [expletive]

Quote
with 2 unproven assumptions building on each other - Sun/Earth in center of Earth and Aether)
Former's a conclusion, second's entirely justified. Both facts you have been told, botht hings you should know if you'd bothered to read about the model, yet more example of the [expletive] you spew EVERY [expletive] TIME

Why is it you are incapable of being AT ALL HONEST?! EVERYONE who reads these threads can see it, who do you think you're fooling?

Quote
I will use your BS argument - "Poor me, I don't have the time or resources" to prove it.
An argument I have used in only one situation, and given you the means to refute it, but sure, keep with your same old [expletive]. Providing calculations that you claim are easy and known to exist is NOT THE SAME as demanding one person singlehandedly map out the entire [expletive] Earth, but sure, carry one with the same old straw man and dishonesty crap. WHAT THE [expletive] IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

Quote
I have proved within 42/42,0000 km (i.e. 0.1%) that this is a REAL object. UFET after YEARS SAYS the SUN/MOON are 5000-6000 km (1/10th the distance and 1000/5000 = 20%, 1000/6000 = 17% off) and that has been sufficient. Hell, they don't even know where the Sun/Moon are in the sky on their model with any certainty. Your DEF postulates a Sun/Moon in the Earth without ANY REAL proof (zero measurements - infinite% off). I am done with your trolling.
Stop being such a miserable little [expletive] and work for once. Read, listen, take in, admit a terrible argument when you make it, stop whining and plugging your own threads, stop assuming you are the only one capable of thought, and maybe we can actually have a discussion sometimes.
DET makes a prediction based upon EXISTING AND DEDUCED BEHAVIOR OF AETHER. [expletive] if you're not even going to try to learn.

JUSTIFY YOUR [expletive] CLAIMS AND STOP WHINING ABOUT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS
« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 01:03:13 PM by Jane »
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #147 on: November 06, 2015, 04:44:02 PM »
There are a number of websites for calculating the setup of a tv satellite dish.  All use a formula for pointing at a single satellite for a service in a particular region.  Understood and proven by many.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #148 on: November 07, 2015, 05:24:12 AM »
There are a number of websites for calculating the setup of a tv satellite dish.  All use a formula for pointing at a single satellite for a service in a particular region.  Understood and proven by many.
Simulated points, fuckwit, you've already been told this and unless you feel like providing any evidnece beyond your closed-minded obsession with RET, we're done.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #149 on: November 07, 2015, 06:33:45 AM »
Quote
Quote
I will stop trying to justify my statements. I will, just like you, just make vague but true statements.
So, evasion, as per usual. And of course your usual tack of complete dishonesty. I justify what I say when it's possible (I don't feel like outling the DE model and justifications, several pages, every single time I make a post), but more often than not that remains irrelevant because what I am doing is responding to objections. It is not necessary in every single case to supply evidence, because to refute a claim of impossibility, I have only to show that it is possible.
You have been told this before, and if you weren't such a fuckwit you should know this already, but instead you made bullshit claims that all situations are somehow equivalent when anyone with a brain would know that's not true.
Evasion, per your usual.
This was in reference to real alignment of real telescopes with real numbers. As you say, you must provide evidence to show that it is possible in DEF. You haven't.
Quote
Quote
In the "Life Style" thread,
Stop plugging your own threads you vain bastard.
As you say, "I don't feel like outling the DE model and justifications, several pages, every single time I make a post". Neither do I. The justification of my statements are in that thread so I make reference to it. It is not because of vanity (another baseless insult). My, my, we really are at the bottom of the pyramid (http://statistslayers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Argument_Pyramid.jpg)
Quote
Quote
with 2 unproven assumptions building on each other - Sun/Earth in center of Earth and Aether)
Former's a conclusion, second's entirely justified. Both facts you have been told, botht hings you should know if you'd bothered to read about the model, yet more example of the bullshit you spew EVERY FUCKING TIME

Why is it you are incapable of being AT ALL HONEST?! EVERYONE who reads these threads can see it, who do you think you're fooling?
Conclusion based on what?
Justified how?
I read the model - both are unproven axioms/assumptions.
All you *say* is that I lie and am dishonest. Always statements. No proof.
Quote
Quote
I will use your BS argument - "Poor me, I don't have the time or resources" to prove it.
An argument I have used in only one situation, and given you the means to refute it, but sure, keep with your same old bullshit. Providing calculations that you claim are easy and known to exist is NOT THE SAME as demanding one person singlehandedly map out the entire fucking Earth, but sure, carry one with the same old straw man and dishonesty crap. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!
"only one situation" - Corollary. So you have the time and resources to provide evidence or falsifiable tests of DEF (not maps)? Let's see them.
Quote
Quote
I have proved within 42/42,0000 km (i.e. 0.1%) that this is a REAL object. UFET after YEARS SAYS the SUN/MOON are 5000-6000 km (1/10th the distance and 1000/5000 = 20%, 1000/6000 = 17% off) and that has been sufficient. Hell, they don't even know where the Sun/Moon are in the sky on their model with any certainty. Your DEF postulates a Sun/Moon in the Earth without ANY REAL proof (zero measurements - infinite% off). I am done with your trolling.
Stop being such a miserable little penguin and work for once. Read, listen, take in, admit a terrible argument when you make it, stop whining and plugging your own threads, stop assuming you are the only one capable of thought, and maybe we can actually have a discussion sometimes.
DET makes a prediction based upon EXISTING AND DEDUCED BEHAVIOR OF AETHER. Fuck off if you're not even going to try to learn.

JUSTIFY YOUR FUCKING CLAIMS AND STOP WHINING ABOUT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS
I have worked. I have provide numbers, measurements and evidence. You have never worked - show us your numbers, measurement and evidence. Be honest.
What are you rambling about?
Quote
DET makes a prediction based upon EXISTING AND DEDUCED BEHAVIOR OF AETHER
whose existence is an assumption (axiomatic). What prediction exactly?
Quote
JUSTIFY YOUR FUCKING CLAIMS
- when asked where the Moon was, all you can say it is "near the Sun". As observed in the real sky, it is not. Without knowing where it is, you claim it produces phases and lunar eclipses. Hence, with no actual numbers, not even approximate ones, infinite% off. My justification of my claims.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."