GPS

Like I said multiple times, check the IEEE academic database.

The fact that there are published papers in the IEEE academic database about how GPS-like system could work without satellites doesn't invalidate the point that the current GPS system, based on satellites and the assumption that the Earth is round, works.

Also your baseless attacks on our knowledge are pretty fucking silly when you can't even explain your own point.

Watch your mouth little girl.

Quote from: John Davis on March 23, 2020, 08:41:20 AM

Also your baseless attacks on our knowledge are pretty fucking silly when you can't even explain your own point.

Watch your mouth little girl.

Please ban this sock puppet, personal attacks on a mod in the upper forums.

Quote from: sokarul on March 23, 2020, 09:25:27 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 23, 2020, 08:41:20 AM

Also your baseless attacks on our knowledge are pretty fucking silly when you can't even explain your own point.

Watch your mouth little girl.

Please ban this sock puppet, personal attacks on a mod in the upper forums.

Please refrain from personal attacks by calling anybody you don't like the highly derogatory term "sock puppet".

I mean, the most ironic thing is that quite a few parts of the Flat Earth Theory are not compatible even with computer science, yet alone with sciences that deal more closely with the topics. Consider this:

The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see. If you increase your height you are changing your perspective lines and thus can see further before all sight is lost to the vanishing point.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:

However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:
The vanishing point acts as the liming point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished into the surface to see with the naked eye.

The same effect is found on a 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. When you increase your altitude you can see farther because you are so much higher than everything else. Your computer's resolution is better able to see something below you than off on the horizon where the pixels are linearly squished.

You guys here realize that's not remotely how 3D rendering works, right? 3D renderers, such as OpenGL, have no concept of perspective lines, yet alone of vanishing points somehow being at a finite distance to the observer.
And it obviously wouldn't provide a realistic effect. If...

The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see.

...were true, the horizon would appear closer to us as we climb, rather than farther. When you climb up a lighthouse, you are farther away from the ship, and thus you see it at a smaller angle. Computer games generally simply ignore the fact that the distance to the horizon changes with your elevation.
Have you ever even done the simplest 3D graphics without a game engine, if you don't understand this? I have done some, you can see it at the bottom of this web-page?

GPS is a classic case outright denial by believers in the flat earth. If flat earth advocates were as open-minded as they claim all they should need to be convinced of the existence od GPS satellites is a clear night, a pair of binoculars and one of the many tracking apps that are available for one's smartphone.
 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/satellite-tracker-by-star-walk/id1248172706

GPS is a classic case outright denial by believers in the flat earth. If flat earth advocates were as open-minded as they claim all they should need to be convinced of the existence od GPS satellites is a clear night, a pair of binoculars and one of the many tracking apps that are available for one's smartphone.
 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/satellite-tracker-by-star-walk/id1248172706

Yeah! I wonder why they stop at claiming the Earth is flat? Why not claim that, for example, airplanes don't exist? What do you think about the parody of Flat-Earthers (and conspiracy theorists in general) I linked to in my signature?

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Interesting claim that GPS transmitters are land based.

We understand the speed of each transmitter needed for the current values of the Doppler Shift.
Now try to describe the way of simulating the Doppler Shift using land based transmitters.

Simultaneously for so many receivers, all at different locations?

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory.

No, it's not. How can GPS devices be fooled into thinking there are satellites they expect if they don't exist? Even more, how can they be fooled into giving correct coordinates despite the satellites they expect not actually existing?

On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't.

They are backed up by basic common sense and geometry (the elevation problem, for instance).

"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Well, the burden of proof is defined relatively to the scientific consensus, not relatively to the ignorant people. Besides, the "Ships disappear bottom first even when there are no waves." (which I think many people would give you) is a relatively good reason. In fact, it's an excellent reason, and I've yet to hear a reasonable response to that.

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Quote from: John Davis

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory.

No, it's not. How can GPS devices be fooled into thinking there are satellites they expect if they don't exist?

Because they exist.

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory.

Yes, it is "coherent" with your non-flat Earth theory.
But we are talking about a FE, such as the commonly presented disk model. Not a RE theory where the surface of Earth has just been redefined as flat.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Quote from: FlatAssembler on March 24, 2020, 11:28:24 AM

Quote from: John Davis

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory.

No, it's not. How can GPS devices be fooled into thinking there are satellites they expect if they don't exist?

Because they exist.

Agreed but why is it that you seem to be the only flat Earther who admits that satellites exist.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Quote from: FlatAssembler on March 24, 2020, 11:28:24 AM

Quote from: John Davis

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory.

No, it's not. How can GPS devices be fooled into thinking there are satellites they expect if they don't exist?

Because they exist.

You appear to have self invented a class of vehicles or objects that work in a way unknown to science. Satellites, those responsible for GPS, on the other hand work in a way known to science in that they orbit the earth in a predefined way as designed to by the engineers and those who constructed the launch vehicles  that placed them in their precise orbits.
I’m not actually sure what you are arguing for nor I think do you.

You appear to have self invented a class of vehicles or objects that work in a way unknown to science.

You should really try reading more.
The satellites his model has orbit Earth, just like the ones in the RE model.

The only difference between the RE model and his model is he redefines flat to match the surface of Earth.

That is why you didn't stand a chance at debating him, because you weren't paying attention to what he had said and instead were just treating it as a FE model based upon the known definitions.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

GPS doesn't use satellites.

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

Quote

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

All GPS devices we have today, unless you are going to assert a truly massive conspiracy, involving anybody who has ever successfully compiled the GPS software, rely on an algorithm that presupposes the emitters of the signal it receives are satellites 20'000 kilometers above the ground. Some GPS devices use GSM (or 3G, or 4G, or WiFi...) signal to increase their accuracy in the event the signal they receive from satellites is low, but a signal from 3 or more satellites always provides a more accurate position than does GSM (or 3G, or 4G or WiFi...) signal. And not all GPS devices do that, unless you are going to claim they somehow do that and are able to keep that hidden.
But I guess that, when you are a conspiracy theorist, normal reasoning seems like laziness or even  as an attack to you. You know, like when Caesar asked Cicero to let the other side of the story about the Catiline conspiracy be heard, some people in the senate accused him of being a part of the conspiracy, rather than listening to his arguments.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

Quote

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

Right.  So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased.  Both times. 

It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity.  And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.

It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after.  Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?

PS.  Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 08:28:36 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

Quote

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

Right.  So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased.  Both times. 

It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity.  And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.

It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after.  Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?

PS.  Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?

This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.

I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 08:28:36 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

Quote

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

Right.  So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased.  Both times. 

It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity.  And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.

It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after.  Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?

PS.  Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?

You know, when I was supporting ridiculous conspiracy theories on the TextKit forum, a guy with the user name Barry Hofstetter told me:

Si onera probendi ordinaria non accipis tibi auxilium sufficere non possum. Mihi huius collocutionis satis est, sed gratias tibi pro colloquendo Latine.

"If you don't accept ordinary evidence, there is nothing I can do to help you. I am tired of this conversation, but congratulations for being able to speak Latin!".
That may be the appropriate attitude to have here towards people like John Davis. Except that we aren't speaking Latin, so there is nothing to congratulate John Davis for.

I mean, the most ironic thing is that quite a few parts of the Flat Earth Theory are not compatible even with computer science, yet alone with sciences that deal more closely with the topics. Consider this:

Quote from: https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Viewing+Distance

The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see. If you increase your height you are changing your perspective lines and thus can see further before all sight is lost to the vanishing point.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:

However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:
The vanishing point acts as the liming point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished into the surface to see with the naked eye.

The same effect is found on a 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. When you increase your altitude you can see farther because you are so much higher than everything else. Your computer's resolution is better able to see something below you than off on the horizon where the pixels are linearly squished.

You guys here realize that's not remotely how 3D rendering works, right? 3D renderers, such as OpenGL, have no concept of perspective lines, yet alone of vanishing points somehow being at a finite distance to the observer.
And it obviously wouldn't provide a realistic effect. If...

Quote

The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see.

...were true, the horizon would appear closer to us as we climb, rather than farther. When you climb up a lighthouse, you are farther away from the ship, and thus you see it at a smaller angle. Computer games generally simply ignore the fact that the distance to the horizon changes with your elevation.
Have you ever even done the simplest 3D graphics without a game engine, if you don't understand this? I have done some, you can see it at the bottom of this web-page?

I'm actually quite familiar with how OpenGL works. I used it extensively when working on Bungies Myth 2 and Take Two's Myth III tools. It's irrelevant how a graphics engine implements their rendering as this says nothing to reality.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 10:45:57 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 08:28:36 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

Quote

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

Right.  So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased.  Both times. 

It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity.  And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.

It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after.  Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?

PS.  Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?

This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.

I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.

It's not unsupported, it's supported by many pieces of evidence we gave you here. The source code of the open-source GPS software perhaps being the most convincing one. Other than that, it's possible to prove the emitters of the GPS signal are moving fast because of the Doppler Effect. How would you explain that if they are land-based? Also, a GPS system that doesn't use satellites wouldn't be able to accurately tell your 3D position with signal from just three emitters, there would be ambiguity, mostly in height. GPS devices we have obviously can do that.

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 08:28:36 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

Quote

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

All GPS devices we have today, unless you are going to assert a truly massive conspiracy, involving anybody who has ever successfully compiled the GPS software, rely on an algorithm that presupposes the emitters of the signal it receives are satellites 20'000 kilometers above the ground. Some GPS devices use GSM (or 3G, or 4G, or WiFi...) signal to increase their accuracy in the event the signal they receive from satellites is low, but a signal from 3 or more satellites always provides a more accurate position than does GSM (or 3G, or 4G or WiFi...) signal. And not all GPS devices do that, unless you are going to claim they somehow do that and are able to keep that hidden.
But I guess that, when you are a conspiracy theorist, normal reasoning seems like laziness or even  as an attack to you. You know, like when Caesar asked Cicero to let the other side of the story about the Catiline conspiracy be heard, some people in the senate accused him of being a part of the conspiracy, rather than listening to his arguments.

Please support your claim that ALL GPS devices we have today use satellites.

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 11:11:53 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 10:45:57 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 08:28:36 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

Quote

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

Right.  So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased.  Both times. 

It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity.  And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.

It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after.  Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?

PS.  Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?

This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.

I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.

It's not unsupported, it's supported by many pieces of evidence we gave you here. The source code of the open-source GPS software perhaps being the most convincing one. Other than that, it's possible to prove the emitters of the GPS signal are moving fast because of the Doppler Effect. How would you explain that if they are land-based? Also, a GPS system that doesn't use satellites wouldn't be able to accurately tell your 3D position with signal from just three emitters, there would be ambiguity, mostly in height. GPS devices we have obviously can do that.

Great, so you agree "an implementation of GPS might use satellites." You have yet to show that satellites are required. Because they are not.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on March 24, 2020, 12:54:09 AM

I mean, the most ironic thing is that quite a few parts of the Flat Earth Theory are not compatible even with computer science, yet alone with sciences that deal more closely with the topics. Consider this:

Quote from: https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Viewing+Distance

The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see. If you increase your height you are changing your perspective lines and thus can see further before all sight is lost to the vanishing point.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:

However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:
The vanishing point acts as the liming point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished into the surface to see with the naked eye.

The same effect is found on a 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. When you increase your altitude you can see farther because you are so much higher than everything else. Your computer's resolution is better able to see something below you than off on the horizon where the pixels are linearly squished.

You guys here realize that's not remotely how 3D rendering works, right? 3D renderers, such as OpenGL, have no concept of perspective lines, yet alone of vanishing points somehow being at a finite distance to the observer.
And it obviously wouldn't provide a realistic effect. If...

Quote

The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see.

...were true, the horizon would appear closer to us as we climb, rather than farther. When you climb up a lighthouse, you are farther away from the ship, and thus you see it at a smaller angle. Computer games generally simply ignore the fact that the distance to the horizon changes with your elevation.
Have you ever even done the simplest 3D graphics without a game engine, if you don't understand this? I have done some, you can see it at the bottom of this web-page?

I'm actually quite familiar with how OpenGL works. I used it extensively when working on Bungies Myth 2 and Take Two's Myth III tools. It's irrelevant how a graphics engine implements their rendering as this says nothing to reality.

What do you mean it says nothing to reality? A rendering engine that made those assumptions about perspective that the Flat Earth Theory makes wouldn't give realistic results.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on March 25, 2020, 11:17:43 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 11:11:53 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 10:45:57 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 08:28:36 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

Quote

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

Right.  So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased.  Both times. 

It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity.  And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.

It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after.  Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?

PS.  Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?

This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.

I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.

It's not unsupported, it's supported by many pieces of evidence we gave you here. The source code of the open-source GPS software perhaps being the most convincing one. Other than that, it's possible to prove the emitters of the GPS signal are moving fast because of the Doppler Effect. How would you explain that if they are land-based? Also, a GPS system that doesn't use satellites wouldn't be able to accurately tell your 3D position with signal from just three emitters, there would be ambiguity, mostly in height. GPS devices we have obviously can do that.

Great, so you agree "an implementation of GPS might use satellites." You have yet to show that satellites are required. Because they are not.

For some hypothetical GPS system they aren't. For the GPS system that works remotely like one we have today, they are required. The GPS devices assume the signal they receive is from satellites that are 20'000 kilometers high in the sky and follow certain orbits. And even if all the GPS software was somehow secretly modified by those that know the GPS emitters are actually land-based rather than satellites, you would still have the problem explaining how can they possibly determine your altitude with signal from just three receivers, as GPS devices we have can.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 10:45:57 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 08:28:36 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

Quote

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

Right.  So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased.  Both times. 

It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity.  And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.

It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after.  Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?

PS.  Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?

This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.

I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.

So now you’re back onto claiming that GPS doesn’t use satellites?  Make up your mind!

And this is claim!  It doesn’t matter who you are responding to or whether their argument is supported or not.  You are making a statement about reality, it’s either correct or it isn’t.

My link clearly demonstrates that GPS works by calculating your position based on the transmitted location of orbiting satellites.  That seems pretty relevant to the topic to me.

Certainly more relevant than your twisting and turning.

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 11:11:53 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 10:45:57 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 25, 2020, 08:28:36 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 25, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 01:00:00 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 24, 2020, 10:11:42 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2020, 09:21:36 AM

GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."

Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.

I however provided a link as requested by you.  Did you bother to look at it?

Where did I make any such claim?

Here:

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2020, 05:46:18 PM

GPS doesn't use satellites.

And for those not being tools:

Quote

GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?

Right.  So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased.  Both times. 

It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity.  And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.

It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after.  Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?

PS.  Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?

This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.

I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.

So now you’re back onto claiming that GPS doesn’t use satellites?  Make up your mind!

And this is claim!  It doesn’t matter who you are responding to or whether their argument is supported or not.  You are making a statement about reality, it’s either correct or it isn’t.

My link clearly demonstrates that GPS works by calculating your position based on the transmitted location of orbiting satellites.  That seems pretty relevant to the topic to me.

Certainly more relevant than your twisting and turning.

Your link gives an example of an implementation of GPS that uses satellites. It says nothing to whether any GPS is required to use satellites.

Satellites are not required for GPS. Showing an example of a GPS that uses satellites doesn't address this in any way shape or form.