What would change your mind?

Keep in mind though that he never claims any of this is reality, and in fact clearly says again and again that he is NOT claiming this as reality.

He knows it is just a world he has made up in his mind.  A safe little space where he has control over everything because it is all just in his imagination.  It all 'fits' and 'works' for him only because he tells himself that it does and imagines that it does.

Of course and 'at the end of the day' we can all make up a different world with an alternative version of 'reality' in our minds. That's what the writers of science fiction do all the time.  We can make anything happen and anything possible or real in our minds eye. Sceptimatic is no exception.  Belief sees no boundaries.

Equally though he dismisses our models as nonsense and obviously we cannot all be right... or wrong.

He said 100%fact


And then pg's later

I his opinion



Hes a pos.

He said 100%fact


And then pg's later

I his opinion



Hes a pos.

No, I didn't.
Your problem is you make stuff up and can't back it up.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 12, 2021, 06:20:20 AM

He said 100%fact


And then pg's later

I his opinion



Hes a pos.

No, I didn't.
Your problem is you make stuff up and can't back it up.

Projecting a tad today huh.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 12, 2021, 06:20:20 AM

He said 100%fact


And then pg's later

I his opinion



Hes a pos.

No, I didn't.
Your problem is you make stuff up and can't back it up.

great
you don't like what we made up.
how about you make up a way to figure out how to calculate the massive tilt if the turbines were on a globe spaced 30km away from the viewer (viewer being at sea level).
let us konw what you come up with.

Quote from: Stash on May 11, 2021, 06:01:04 PM

Classic and hilarious. You should teach a master class in cherry-picking what you think supports your assertions and omitting the context that clearly shows your assertions are patently false.

From the link you shared: Introduction to Coordinate Systems / Spatial Reference Systems
https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/IntroductionToCoordinateSystems1.html

You failed to include the second page (https://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm/Lessons/GIS/03%20Projections/Definitions2.html) where it states:

Wait, so after all this you accept that the data and calculations are on physically flat maps, but now your argument is to post statements suggesting they think that the small local flat maps come from a sphere?

Looks like your argument has recessed to the point to where you think that WGS84 is a Flat Earth mapping system.

If you think that the data and calculations are based on physically flat maps, then it utterly destroys your case. We can clearly see that your argument had no merit if it had to degrade to this point.

I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems you are just manufacturing assertions at this point - From your source.

Definition of Projecting
The earth is an ellipsoid. To view spatial data on paper and computer screens, we need to project the data onto a 2d surface. This is called "projecting”.

And apparently you failed the quiz from the reference you cited - Well done:

Which of the following is the best definition of projecting in GIS?

A) Converting a rectangular data into spherical data
B) Converting a spherical data into rectangular data
C) When slides are projected on a wall

The answer is B - The best definition of projecting in GIS is Converting a spherical data into rectangular data

The truth is that you are just ignorant of this. The systems are explained here:

The truth is that it is based upon a RE.

Your own quotes clearly indicate it is based upon a RE.
You just ignore that because you want to pretend it is flat.

If Earth was flat why does your own source say it is best modelled as an ellipsoid?

It is clearly saying that it prefers the measurements in the projected (flat) coordinate system. Hence the title of the article.

No, it doesn't.
It clearly claims:
"surface of the earth, which is of course, best modelled as an ellipsoid"
Notice how it doesn't claim the surface of Earth is best modelled as a flat plane?
Notice how instead it explicitly states that:
"surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid"

What you are dishonestly cherry picking is that the web Mercator projection has some significant flaws, and a different flat PROJECTION of earth is better, for STATE WIDE application.
A flat map is far more convenient than a round map, and for a small area, it can work reasonably well, hence for STATE WIDE data, it is "best".

They use a single zone of this system. You cannot accurately have the entire world in a single zone. If you tried you would end up with massive distortions.
Instead if you want to have the entire world, you need an ellipsoid/sphere.


Hence your assessment is just rubbish and I would encourage you to learn more about this, and most importantly, HONESTLY represent it.

Does tomB believe the mecator is a relevant map?

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 11, 2021, 10:40:05 AM

Maube you can ask danag how to circle.

What the hell does this mean?

You both horribly fail at trying to make circles work.
He claims that pi is one of several different values, but not the actual value, and thus ends up getting things related to it completely wrong.
You also make wild claims, which are completely wrong.
Like claiming that an object 30 km away, on an Earth with a circumference of 40 000 km, should have a massive tilt, when the simple math you cannot refute proves conclusively that it should tilt 0.27 degrees, i.e. basically nothing.

Likewise, you claim that a circle or downwards slope will magically be impossible to see through a level tube, outright defying basic geometry which again conclusively proves that the ability to see it is dependent upon several factors; it is not a simple case of it being magically impossible to see.

And because you know you are full of pure BS, you refuse to answer trivial questions, as these trivial questions clearly show you are wrong:
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 11, 2021, 02:07:28 PM

  What mechanism makes the higher density go down?

Stacking.

That is not a mechanism which makes it higher density lower down.
If you had gravity, then it would, but you don't.
Again, if I stack a bunch of things sideways, it doesn't magically have a density/force gradient.

Yep but you have the potential to look alternately to what was basically battered into your head, just like I did.

The difference is we didn't just have it basically battered into our head, and we actually understand it.
So rather than looking for alternatives specifically to reject the globe like you did, we look for alternatives and evaluate them on their basis to explain reality.

So far all the alternatives I have looked at fail horribly, including yours.
You refuse to answer trivial question which show massive problems with your alternative.

There's a lot to explain and a lot to grasp for those who want to.

And you clearly don't want to, as you can't seem to explain anything.

Your problem is you make stuff up and can't back it up.

No, that would be your problem, like you made up that it would have a massive tilt, and that the RE would not be visible through a level tube, and that air magically pushes things down, and so on.
You make up all sorts of crap in your quest to irrationally attack the globe at all costs, but you don't seem to be able to back any of it up.

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 11, 2021, 02:07:28 PM

  What mechanism makes the higher density go down?

Stacking.

Not what I asked.
Why down?  Why not up towards the lower density?  Higher density flows towards lower density, or so I'm told by many FE people, so why doesn't this happen in the atmosphere and why is the higher density pretty much always in a downwards direction?

Quote from: Stash on May 10, 2021, 12:23:13 AM

- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?

What is your evidence they are using a globe?

So again:

The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.

- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?

And question 3, what is your "go to" flat earth map? I'd like to have a look at it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2021, 09:22:40 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 11, 2021, 10:40:05 AM

Maube you can ask danag how to circle.

What the hell does this mean?

You both horribly fail at trying to make circles work.
He claims that pi is one of several different values, but not the actual value, and thus ends up getting things related to it completely wrong.
You also make wild claims, which are completely wrong.
Like claiming that an object 30 km away, on an Earth with a circumference of 40 000 km, should have a massive tilt, when the simple math you cannot refute proves conclusively that it should tilt 0.27 degrees, i.e. basically nothing.

What you really need to do is to measure the 8 inches per mile squared in drop at 30 km and see what that comes up with on your so called globe.


Only then will you see how silly your pretence of a tilt would be.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2021, 09:23:46 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 11, 2021, 02:07:28 PM

  What mechanism makes the higher density go down?

Stacking.

Not what I asked.
Why down?  Why not up towards the lower density?  Higher density flows towards lower density, or so I'm told by many FE people, so why doesn't this happen in the atmosphere and why is the higher density pretty much always in a downwards direction?

I'm too busy dancing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2021, 02:52:24 AM

Quote from: Stash on May 10, 2021, 12:23:13 AM

- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?

What is your evidence they are using a globe?

So again:

The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.

- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?

And question 3, what is your "go to" flat earth map? I'd like to have a look at it.

Do you have any real evidence from your own self about what you're saying or are you reliant on what you read about?

Quote from: Stash on May 12, 2021, 08:28:26 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2021, 02:52:24 AM

Quote from: Stash on May 10, 2021, 12:23:13 AM

- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?

What is your evidence they are using a globe?

So again:

The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.

- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?

And question 3, what is your "go to" flat earth map? I'd like to have a look at it.

Do you have any real evidence from your own self about what you're saying or are you reliant on what you read about?

It's not just what I read about. Printed on the required maps is the reference to spherical data and projections used on the maps. And these folks, pilots, airlines, commercial and private, are required to use them.

So yeah, these pilots get us safely from A to B. Using these parameters. So the questions remain:

- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?

And question 3, what is your "go to" flat earth map? I'd like to have a look at it.

It's not just what I read about. Printed on the required maps is the reference to spherical data and projections used on the maps.

How do you know it's a reference to spherical data for a spinning globe?

And these folks, pilots, airlines, commercial and private, are required to use them.

Do they have a globe sitting on a panel in front of them or a navigator ushing one around as they fly?
Or do they use a big piece of paper on their laps and mark positions on them or do they use headings programmed into a computer and shown on a screen?


 

So yeah, these pilots get us safely from A to B. Using these parameters. So the questions remain:

- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?

My evidence is water level.

- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?

I'm saying they use a map of the know areas of the world they navigate.

And question 3, what is your "go to" flat earth map? I'd like to have a look at it.

The map I go by is the map that works the best for navigation.
Usually it's just a set of road maps for parts of countries I drive through.
I cannot do anything about mapping from a plane as I'm merely a passenger in an aluminium can, etc.

Quote from: Stash on May 12, 2021, 10:28:36 PM

It's not just what I read about. Printed on the required maps is the reference to spherical data and projections used on the maps.

How do you know it's a reference to spherical data for a spinning globe?

Because of this (spinning aside, that's a whole different discussion. But spherical, yes):

The evidence is that they are using a globe and say so, specifically, right on the map/chart that is required by the FAA. Here again:

Back to the projection...If you zoom into the left side of the map area, you will see this:



Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:

"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."

In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.

Now to the projection. The "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" is described as:

"...conic map projection used for aeronautical charts, portions of the State Plane Coordinate System, and many national and regional mapping systems...the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone. The cone is unrolled, and the parallel that was touching the sphere is assigned unit scale. That parallel is called the reference parallel or standard parallel."

So again:

The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.

- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?

I'm saying they use a map of the know areas of the world they navigate.

The map I go by is the map that works the best for navigation.
Usually it's just a set of road maps for parts of countries I drive through.
I cannot do anything about mapping from a plane as I'm merely a passenger in an aluminium can, etc.

Do you believe the mercator map is a relevant map?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 10:50:00 PM

Quote from: Stash on May 12, 2021, 10:28:36 PM

It's not just what I read about. Printed on the required maps is the reference to spherical data and projections used on the maps.

How do you know it's a reference to spherical data for a spinning globe?

Because of this (spinning aside, that's a whole different discussion. But spherical, yes):

The evidence is that they are using a globe and say so, specifically, right on the map/chart that is required by the FAA. Here again:

Back to the projection...If you zoom into the left side of the map area, you will see this:



Notice how the chart specifies that it uses a "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" and the datum is referenced by the "World Geodetic System 1984", aka WGS-84. Now as has been shown to you before the WGS-84 is:

"...a standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and satellite navigation including GPS. This standard includes the definition of the coordinate system's fundamental and derived constants, the ellipsoidal (normal) Earth Gravitational Model (EGM), a description of the associated World Magnetic Model (WMM), and a current list of local datum transformations."

In other words, the reference ellipsoid shape of the earth is a globe.

Now to the projection. The "Lambert Conformal Conic Projection" is described as:

"...conic map projection used for aeronautical charts, portions of the State Plane Coordinate System, and many national and regional mapping systems...the projection seats a cone over the sphere of the Earth and projects the surface conformally onto the cone. The cone is unrolled, and the parallel that was touching the sphere is assigned unit scale. That parallel is called the reference parallel or standard parallel."

So again:

The bottomline, the FAA mandated charts required by airlines to use are built on a globe earth model. Period. Unless you can directly refute with evidence the evidence I have presented above.

- Are you saying that airlines don't use the FAA charts they are required to use and use some secret flat earth maps/charts? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Are you saying that airlines do use the FAA charts they are required to use and even though they are built using a globe earth, they somehow are still correct on a flat earth? If so, what is your evidence and how does that work?

No matter what you say you are arguing from a point of view by appeals to authority, nothing more than that.
That's not a dig at you, it's just what it is.
You read/study and believe this stuff and it becomes your truth based on your faith in those you buy into, wholeheartedly.

That's also not a dig, it's simply a truth unless you can physically prove otherwise and leave me in no doubt that you know for sure, anything of what you say.


At least admit one way or the other.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 10:50:00 PM

I'm saying they use a map of the know areas of the world they navigate.

The map I go by is the map that works the best for navigation.
Usually it's just a set of road maps for parts of countries I drive through.
I cannot do anything about mapping from a plane as I'm merely a passenger in an aluminium can, etc.

Do you believe the mercator map is a relevant map?

A relevant map for what?

A map of what it maps out.

What a stupid question.
Are you stupid?
You must be stupid.

A map of what it maps out.

What a stupid question.
Are you stupid?
You must be stupid.

Try and stop being angry.
If you want to be angry then call me out in AR or pm me and let off some steam.
All you're doing in this topic is acting like an ....ahem hole.

Says the pos who pretends to not know what a map is.


Mercator map.
You think its valid or not?

Says the pos who pretends to not know what a map is.


Mercator map.
You think its valid or not?

Do you think it's valid and if so what for and also, how do you know?

I thjink its valid for reasonablky locating countries and oceans.

How about you?
Delfect, much?
Answer the question, not?

I thjink its valid for reasonablky locating countries and oceans.

How about you?
Delfect, much?
Answer the question, not?

Can you show how it's valid in terms of going over a globe?

What you really need to do is to measure the 8 inches per mile squared in drop at 30 km and see what that comes up with on your so called globe.

Do you mean physically measure it?
If so, no, we don't.
We can clearly observe it on the image provided, and you can come up with nothing to refute it.

If you mean by math, I already did, and showed the images matches what is expected for the globe.

What you need to do, is start justifying your outright lies about the RE, or recant them.
You can start by answering the trivial question you continue to avoid as they show you are completely wrong.
Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?
Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?
Again, what should the tilt be (provide a number) for an object 30 km away?
How much of such an object should be hidden at a 30 km distance, if you are standing 2 m above the RE?

Only then will you see how silly your pretence of a tilt would be.

You mean your pretence of a massive/insane tilt.
Math quite easily allows us to see just how insignificant the tilt is.
Again, for Earth, with a circumference of 40 000 km, you need to travel 40 000 km to tilt 360 degree.
Or to put it another way, the rate of tilt is 360 degrees / 40000 km = 0.009 degrees per km.
So for 30 km it would be 30 km * 0.009 degrees/km = 0.27 degrees.

Again, basic, trivial math; which clearly shows your claim is a blatant lie, and that tilt is not a problem for the globe.

No matter what you say you are arguing from a point of view by appeals to authority, nothing more than that.

No it isn't.
Anyone who understands the basics of map projections can transform between the globe and various projections of it.
From this they can easily understand that the various maps of Earth are not based upon a flat Earth, but instead are based upon a RE.
They can then test out how these maps work in various locations to confirm that the globe is an accurate representation (not perfect) of the very real round Earth we live on.

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 12, 2021, 08:22:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2021, 09:23:46 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 11, 2021, 02:07:28 PM

  What mechanism makes the higher density go down?

Stacking.

Not what I asked.
Why down?  Why not up towards the lower density?  Higher density flows towards lower density, or so I'm told by many FE people, so why doesn't this happen in the atmosphere and why is the higher density pretty much always in a downwards direction?

I'm too busy dancing.

And you're doing great.
So you don't know why down.  You have no mechanism for it.  Good job disproving your idea.  So dance some more, it is so entertaining.  I do, however, wish you knew more than the two moves. 

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 13, 2021, 05:08:47 AM

I thjink its valid for reasonablky locating countries and oceans.

How about you?
Delfect, much?
Answer the question, not?

Can you show how it's valid in terms of going over a globe?

My impression if it is valid or not is not an issue for globers.


For flatties it is very much vlaid.
So
Deflect a little less and answer if you think its valid.

Simple yes no.
Are you some sort of politician?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 09:08:58 PM

What you really need to do is to measure the 8 inches per mile squared in drop at 30 km and see what that comes up with on your so called globe.

Do you mean physically measure it?
If so, no, we don't.
We can clearly observe it on the image provided, and you can come up with nothing to refute it.

How much of the turbine would you lose from a view out to 30 km by using the 8 inches per mile squared global set up?