I'm new

Quote from: John Davis on October 01, 2018, 11:39:53 AM

I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Can't speak to Navy manuals, but the FAA makes it pretty clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to navigation - See chapter 16 for starters:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf

No it does not so quit being such a disingenuous asshat!

The use of the term "globe," in ONE spot in a 728 page manual in writing concerning air pressure and changes...

Please demonstrate for all here how the word "globe," within the context of this phrase:
"Since weather stations are located around the globe, all local barometric pressure readings are converted to a sea level pressure to provide a standard for records and reports. To achieve this, each station converts its barometric pressure by adding approximately 1 "Hg for every 1,000 feet of elevation. For example, a station at 5,000 feet above sea level, with a reading of 24.92 "Hg, reports a sea level pressure reading of
29.92 "Hg. [Figure 12-8] Using common sea level pressure readings helps ensure aircraft altimeters are set correctly, based on the current pressure readings.

By tracking barometric pressure trends across a large area, weather forecasters can more accurately predict movement of pressure systems and the associated weather. For example, tracking a pattern of rising pressure at a single weather station generally indicates the approach of fair weather. Conversely, decreasing or rapidly falling pressure usually indicates approaching bad weather and, possibly, severe storms." impacts the air pressure reference.

The writer could just have easily written "flat earth," in the same space and there would have no impact on the information.

Why don't you go "stash," your idiocy back on the other site?

Googleotomy, you don't need your bffs to back you up. If you're going to pick a fight, I can just go ahead and ban you now. Your decision.

Haha ya.
I got banned a few times too for my snideness.

But back to the cureent topic at hand, using a navy guide book or a railway guide book (past tgread) out of context makes no sense.
Illogical proof.
Those books' purpose is not to discuss the sphereness of the world but to handle their immediate instruction requirements.

The writer could just have easily written "flat earth," in the same space and there would have no impact on the information.

Why don't you go "stash," your idiocy back on the other site?

   Your sense of logic is odd. You see, the FAA didn’t write “flat earth”, they wrote “Globe”.

   "The force created by the rotation of the Earth is known as the Coriolis force.”
   12.4

    "The signals follow the curvature of the Earth; therefore, if the aircraft is within the range of the station, the signals can be received regardless of altitude.”
   16.29

   As well:
   

Quote from: Stash on October 01, 2018, 12:13:21 PM

Quote from: John Davis on October 01, 2018, 11:39:53 AM

I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Can't speak to Navy manuals, but the FAA makes it pretty clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to navigation - See chapter 16 for starters:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf

No it does not so quit being such a disingenuous asshat!

The use of the term "globe," in ONE spot in a 728 page manual in writing concerning air pressure and changes...

So what? You have read this post, I suppose? Re: I'm new « Reply #152 on: Today at 03:23:49 AM ».
When displaying your own incompetence it would be wise not to claim others are posting "idiocy":

The writer could just have easily written "flat earth," in the same space and there would have no impact on the information.
Why don't you go "stash," your idiocy back on the other site?

Still, I guess you weren't named "totallackey" for nothing.

Quote from: totallackey on October 04, 2018, 05:39:55 AM

The writer could just have easily written "flat earth," in the same space and there would have no impact on the information.

Why don't you go "stash," your idiocy back on the other site?

   Your sense of logic is odd. You see, the FAA didn’t write “flat earth”, they wrote “Globe”.

   "The force created by the rotation of the Earth is known as the Coriolis force.”
   12.4

    "The signals follow the curvature of the Earth; therefore, if the aircraft is within the range of the station, the signals can be received regardless of altitude.”
   16.29

   As well:
   

Pretty pictures and claims of rotation does not mean these things actually exist.

Again, stash it where there sun does or does not shine.

Worthless, regardless.

Quote from: Stash on October 04, 2018, 10:23:49 AM

Quote from: totallackey on October 04, 2018, 05:39:55 AM

The writer could just have easily written "flat earth," in the same space and there would have no impact on the information.

Why don't you go "stash," your idiocy back on the other site?

   Your sense of logic is odd. You see, the FAA didn’t write “flat earth”, they wrote “Globe”.

   "The force created by the rotation of the Earth is known as the Coriolis force.”
   12.4

    "The signals follow the curvature of the Earth; therefore, if the aircraft is within the range of the station, the signals can be received regardless of altitude.”
   16.29

   As well:
   

Pretty pictures and claims of rotation does not mean these things actually exist.

I don't know what stash might say,
          but in my opinion it proves that the FAA believe in the rotating spherical earth and I'd certainly believe the FAA rather than a totallackey!

Quote from: Stash on October 04, 2018, 10:23:49 AM

Quote from: totallackey on October 04, 2018, 05:39:55 AM

The writer could just have easily written "flat earth," in the same space and there would have no impact on the information.

Why don't you go "stash," your idiocy back on the other site?

   Your sense of logic is odd. You see, the FAA didn’t write “flat earth”, they wrote “Globe”.

   "The force created by the rotation of the Earth is known as the Coriolis force.”
   12.4

    "The signals follow the curvature of the Earth; therefore, if the aircraft is within the range of the station, the signals can be received regardless of altitude.”
   16.29

   As well:
   

Pretty pictures and claims of rotation does not mean these things actually exist.

Again, stash it where there sun does or does not shine.

Worthless, regardless.

1. Stars rotate around a north and south centered pole.
2. Stars take slightly less then 24 hours to return to the same position.
3. Stars maintain their distances from each other perfectly during rotation.
4. Star trails as seen by time lapse cameras show stars near equator moving faster then near poles and that angular velocity is perfectly proportional throughout the sky lessening towards the poles maintaining their positions perfectly.
5. Stars rise in the east, set in the west, and take nearly 12hours to rise again in the east.

The above 5 statements of fact are indisputable. This tells us either the stars are a spherical shell around us, rotating around us with poles in the north and south with us in the center OR the stars aren’t moving and the Earth is rotating in slightly less then 24 hours.  So, are the stars a spherical shell perfectly moving around us or is the earth rotating?  If you say the stars are a shell, then you are also including all the galaxies and other objects in the sky are all rotating at perfect speeds to maintain their distances from each other all with little old Earth In the center of it all. 

Pretty pictures and claims of rotation does not mean these things actually exist.

Again, stash it where there sun does or does not shine.

Worthless, regardless.

You are correct. I cede to your well crafted and deft rebuttal of mine and the FAA’s claims. A rebuttal especially cunning and exhaustive, airtight, in fact, leaving me no room to even remotely attempt to conjure yet another counter argument among the many already proffered. Well played.

In the mean time, if you have more constructive wisdom to bring to the subject, please, do not spare us your pleasant mannered and measured insights.