Have you ever questioned the astronomy science? I used to teach it and research it. That's how indoctrinated I was. When I started questioning it, the house of cards COLLAPSED.
And unlearning it has been beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. You can't unsee our realm after you awaken to its reality and where we actually are.
I have 3 degrees in aeronautics and astronautics. Orbital mechanics was a big part of it. I worked for a company that made launch vehicles, orbital transfer vehicles, space stations, etc. All as real as hardware can be, complete with passengers.
If there is something to question, spit it out. All I hear from you flatheads are "questions." You don't understand what you are questioning, and you ignore the copious truth of the world as it is.
Thank you for your reply. I don't doubt that the hardware has been created and you worked on it.
I used telescopes to track the objects moving across the sky and make observations. I appreciated the craft and dedication. Once I questioning the science with the facts that I knew by heart, many things didn't actually add up. I took tremendous pride in explaining the physics and astronomy before.
A few things that started the new research were:
Low-level crepuscular rays would be impossible with a sun 93 million miles away. How can these be created without a local sun versus one that is 8 light minutes away?
For solar eclipses, which is moving faster to cause the sun - moon - Earth eclipse at that specific point in time?
For some lunar eclipses, how come there are eclipses that show the shadow of the moon on the wrong half than we're expecting to see based on the diagrams?
With planes flying from West to East, wouldn't they need to fly at 1500+ mph to get to their destination? And flights from East to West should be tremendously quicker. I'll assume that they are keeping the same velocity that they were launched off the globe.
Watching birds fly effortlessly in many random directions makes me question the Earth's rotation calculations or even if we're moving at all. I'm aware of the Foucault Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and open to more proofs.
And if we're rotating, has anyone ever felt the motion of our Earth? If we're in an elliptical orbit with eccentricity of at least 0.0001, wouldn't we feel it when it accelerates? And the acceleration would point to the center of our elliptical orbit. So, depending on our location, we would feel that acceleration to the sun and away from Earth. The people on the dark side would feel slight acceleration to the Earth while those on the sunny side should feel it slightly towards the sun.
That's all the questions that I can think of for now. Many more that I'd like to ask as well. Thank you for your time and anyone else's time. It's the most beautiful red pill ever.
I'll try to take these in order. No problem with crepuscular rays; that is just the effect of distance-perspective on parallel lines. Like viewing a railroad line that extends to a far distance. The rails appear to converge, but they are really parallel. It is the same effect as an apparent "radiant" being a source point for a meteor shower, when in fact the meteors are on essentially parallel paths. The radiant just identifies the angular direction the meteors are coming from (just like the position of the sun identifies the angular direction its rays are coming from).
As for lunar (or solar) eclipses, it is not a question so much of which is moving faster, as of the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth about every 30 days. It's orbital inclination is not quite matched to the Earth's inclination, so most times when it is between the Sun and Earth (solar eclipse) or the Earth is between the Sun and Moon (lunar eclipse) the alignment is not exact and no eclipse occurs. When the alignment occurs, we have an eclipse. The solar eclipses have a shadow that follows a trail on the Earth's surface, and sometimes it is inconvenient to attend it. The lunar eclipses are generally visible to the night side of Earth.
I don't know what you mean by the lunar eclipse shadow being on "the wrong half." We see only the visible half of the Moon in the first place (it always faces the Earth because its rotation has the same period as its orbit, by being tidally locked).
Airplanes fly in the atmosphere, which is a viscous medium. It is carried along with the Earth's surface by friction, similar to bodies of open water. An airplane can be said to "swim" through the air by using fluid dynamics (propulsion and lift). To travel, it only needs to attain a velocity in the air that gives it the required velocity on the ground. If there are headwinds, the ground velocity will be less than the air velocity, and the flight will take longer. If there are tailwinds, the ground velocity will be greater than the air velocity and the flight will be shorter. (If you are shooting ballistic missiles, however, you will have to take the Earth's rotation into account if you are shooting east or west. Since the Earth rotates to the east, shooting in that direction will require less velocity for a given distance, versus shooting west, which will require more velocity to make up for the motion of its launch location.)
The flight of birds is not affected by the Earth's rotation, as they are carried along by the viscosity of the air. Breezes have more influence over their motion. (It also seems to be true that birds navigate by an ability to sense Earth's magnetic field, which guide them for long migrations.)
It is basically impossible to feel the acceleration of the Earth's rotation; it is too small compared to other normal forces in our life. But it does affect the shape of the Earth, providing the oblate ellipsoid shape from the effects of the centrifugal "force." There are various slight accelerations that we must account for in calculating satellite orbits, but all far too small for human senses to be aware of them. Go ahead and calculate them. You will probably find that the accelerations are equivalent to being out of vertical by some small degree, which we would not notice.
We would never "feel" the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, as we are orbiting with the Earth according to the same trajectory. The nature of being in an orbit is that you don't feel any acceleration (the "zero gravity" condition).
It is probably true that there would be a tidal difference in the Sun's gravity between people at noon and people at midnight. But what would this difference be? The radius of the Earth is about 6378 km. The radius of Earth's orbit is about 150 million km. The difference in solar gravity would therefore be about 0.017% If you figure this is going to be less than Earth gravity (because Earth gravity clearly holds us on the Earth) this would be a force difference of no more than 34 thousandths of a pound for a 200-pound person. We make up for imbalances far greater than that. We wouldn't notice it, (In most of these questions, the answers emerge from working out the numbers.)
I hope these help. Glad to tackle any other questions.
Thank you for the very detailed and extensive replies in order.
The major follow-up about the crepuscular rays is that they can diverge dramatically even during the early afternoon over the ocean. The divergence of this when I can see the sky above and the sun within the clouds makes me pause.
Thank you for pointing out the distance- perspective since that is usually used to explain sunsets for local sun. I'm aware of the concept and it's great to bring up for the optics that we see on our Earth. And thanks for using the meteor example for perspective.
I appreciate your detailed response about the eclipse. That's exactly what i would teach people before.
I briefly touch upon the flying in my other response to RaymondBPinelli. As for the rockets, will they need to adjust for the rotation shooting from north to south? As I've read, the spin rate can differ in locations on the Earth. If you're shooting from the equator at a location directly north, by the time the rocket lands in the Earth's reference frame, it would need some adjustment, right?
With the birds movements, there are multiple factors in it as you both have mentioned. Spending the past few months watching birds flying in circles, against the wind, randomly has encouraged me to keep questioning and observing. It's the birds that are flying against the 5-15 mph wind that looks unusual to me. Thank you for pointing out the magnetism. I think that plays a much more critical role in life than we're led to believe.
Thanks for addressing the acceleration component of my post. Since we do experience acceleration with many other objects and forces that we interact with. But since the Earth is much more massive, wouldn't ANY acceleration be felt? Think of driving a car on a curve. We feel that acceleration. So, at a far more massive scale, we would feel even a 0.01% acceleration or deceleration of the entire Earth. And many objects have orbits. Just because it is in an orbit doesn't mean that you don't feel acceleration. The direction of the acceleration would be the same. Spin a rope or something around your finger and you can feel the direction of acceleration. And on an elliptical orbit, it would be more noticeable.
Thank you again for your openness for discussion. I've shared a lot of this information before I kept questioning. A couple other questions for consideration: NASA has been shown to make MANY glitches and errors in their videos. Do we keep giving them the benefit of doubt or do we question further?
And would you be open to looking into how a Flat Earth model works? It has been the most beautiful and freeing red pill I've ever taken. The majority of Flat Earth content has been censored or hidden from search with Google.
I'll assume you're being serious and actually try to give you an answer. I'm not qualified to address most of these questions, but the one about a plane having to fly 1500mph to fly west to east really concerns me regarding your grasp of physics. Frame of reference is a really important concept to understand before you can reliably make observations about the world around you.
The earth's atmosphere, while loose and able to move around through winds and weather patterns, is still a part of earth, and is subject to the earth's rotation just like the water in a spinning glass on a turntable. Spin it for long enough and the water inside will maintain the same rotation as the glass.
Ignoring local wind currents, there is little difference between flying east or west, although the days will pass slightly faster as you fly east and slightly slower when flying west. The atmosphere (which planes need in order to fly) spins with the earth, everything on earth spins with the earth, and thus, the earth is our frame of reference. Unless you are approaching earth from space, outside the influence of our atmosphere, the ground beneath your feet will always be your frame of reference.
If this still isn't making sense, compare getting into a plane with climbing onto a motor boat. Both air and water are subject to earth's rotation, and the vehicles create thrust by pushing air/water backwards in order to go forwards.
I'm not trying to be rude, but if I can so easily pick apart one of your arguments I do understand, why should I assume your other arguments would hold up to similar scrutiny?
I appreciate your sincerity and detailed reply. I'm happy to read through your explanation and address your points. You don't sound rude to me and thank you for taking the time to address the points succinctly.
Yes, I understand the frame of reference used for kinematic and relativistic motions.
Yes, I'm acknowledging the point that you made that the plane flies within the atmosphere moving in the rotation of the Earth.
I use the 1500 mph example since the Earth's rotation is calculated to be 1000 mph, right? And I'm estimating that the plane is flying at 500 mph.
Using an external frame of reference from space, as you mentioned, the plane would need to be flying at 1500 mph as an external observer watches a plane travel from LA to NYC, right? Because if it did not reach that speed to an external observer, then it could never catch up to its destination.
Then, using the Earth's frame of reference, the plane would be moving at 500 mph within the atmosphere.
So, moving WITH the direction of the rotation would be easier or more difficult? At the point in the questioning, the birds and helicopters example starts bending these rules of reality...
As for your comment about the days passing faster or slower depending on the direction, doesn't that just tie in with the time zones? If I leave at 6 am Pacific from LA to Dallas on a 3-hour flight, I should get there at 11 am Central or 9 am Pacific. We're nowhere near traveling at the speed of 0.1c or much higher for time dilation or contraction to happen.
And for the water spinning in glass example, I can do that experiment right now to see it. But what's the experiment look like with a wet tennis ball? Wouldn't all of the water move outwards?
Thank you and everyone else for the replies to my part of this discussion. I'm happy to keep reading and replying later in the day.
Ever used a slide rule? I have. And if you've never done complex, high-accuracy gasdynamics calculations, you have no idea what a godsend digital calculators are (not to mention computers). You still need to understand the math in order to frame the equations. Anyone can turn off their critical thinking, but those who do so are fools.
I can bet you they would only know the angle in their heads if they had previously precalculated a rule of thumb. I have many criticisms of NASA, but you would be way out of line to think they don't know their level of mathematics. (This pertains to space engineering. Regarding "climate science" NASA seems to be corrupting the historical data, thus violating the supreme principle of science: "Thou shalt bear no false witness.")
I own half a dozen slide rules and have programmed in about 20 languages including 5 assemblers and have used a CRAY back in the day, used to talk with Don Becker (created the bonding linux ethernet driver to make a Beowulf cluster of ham sandwiches) on the regular so yeah, I get it.
And that "had previously precalculated a rule of thumb" is exactly the thing I am saying people are missing now...
Point is, the calculator does not help someone become intimate with the math.
Kinda like learning a few chords on the guitar may get you laid, it does not teach you music theory and how to compose / think in music.
People need to learn to think about and master the basics... like making fucking change would be a good start.
Learning to read ... at least at a 5th grade level would be most gooderest toooo.
NASA has become a shit show for the most part... I am waiting on them to go all in on flat earth next... and make the covering one eye their new symbol...
Thank you for the three messages. I've been away from GA.win today as noted in my earlier message. I appreciate your patience and resources.
Yes, I've calculated many spherical coordinates using the visual that you linked.
The latitude lines of 80 degrees N, 70, 60 and so forth can still correspond to a specific radius if you look at the ball from the top down. In fact, the spherical coordinates value indicates that each of those lines would have a specific radius value, theta, and phi values. At each latitude line, the radius and phi angle would be fixed while the theta value changes.
And when you look at the same coordinate system on a flat map that is similar to what the WHO/UN use for their logo, there is a VERY simple and straightforward circular version of the latitudes and longitude values.
Have you ever questioned the astronomy science? I used to teach it and research it. That's how indoctrinated I was. When I started questioning it, the house of cards COLLAPSED.
And unlearning it has been beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. You can't unsee our realm after you awaken to its reality and where we actually are.
I have 3 degrees in aeronautics and astronautics. Orbital mechanics was a big part of it. I worked for a company that made launch vehicles, orbital transfer vehicles, space stations, etc. All as real as hardware can be, complete with passengers.
If there is something to question, spit it out. All I hear from you flatheads are "questions." You don't understand what you are questioning, and you ignore the copious truth of the world as it is.
Thank you for your reply. I don't doubt that the hardware has been created and you worked on it.
I used telescopes to track the objects moving across the sky and make observations. I appreciated the craft and dedication. Once I questioning the science with the facts that I knew by heart, many things didn't actually add up. I took tremendous pride in explaining the physics and astronomy before.
A few things that started the new research were:
Low-level crepuscular rays would be impossible with a sun 93 million miles away. How can these be created without a local sun versus one that is 8 light minutes away?
For solar eclipses, which is moving faster to cause the sun - moon - Earth eclipse at that specific point in time?
For some lunar eclipses, how come there are eclipses that show the shadow of the moon on the wrong half than we're expecting to see based on the diagrams?
With planes flying from West to East, wouldn't they need to fly at 1500+ mph to get to their destination? And flights from East to West should be tremendously quicker. I'll assume that they are keeping the same velocity that they were launched off the globe.
Watching birds fly effortlessly in many random directions makes me question the Earth's rotation calculations or even if we're moving at all. I'm aware of the Foucault Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and open to more proofs.
And if we're rotating, has anyone ever felt the motion of our Earth? If we're in an elliptical orbit with eccentricity of at least 0.0001, wouldn't we feel it when it accelerates? And the acceleration would point to the center of our elliptical orbit. So, depending on our location, we would feel that acceleration to the sun and away from Earth. The people on the dark side would feel slight acceleration to the Earth while those on the sunny side should feel it slightly towards the sun.
That's all the questions that I can think of for now. Many more that I'd like to ask as well. Thank you for your time and anyone else's time. It's the most beautiful red pill ever.
I'll try to take these in order. No problem with crepuscular rays; that is just the effect of distance-perspective on parallel lines. Like viewing a railroad line that extends to a far distance. The rails appear to converge, but they are really parallel. It is the same effect as an apparent "radiant" being a source point for a meteor shower, when in fact the meteors are on essentially parallel paths. The radiant just identifies the angular direction the meteors are coming from (just like the position of the sun identifies the angular direction its rays are coming from).
As for lunar (or solar) eclipses, it is not a question so much of which is moving faster, as of the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth about every 30 days. It's orbital inclination is not quite matched to the Earth's inclination, so most times when it is between the Sun and Earth (solar eclipse) or the Earth is between the Sun and Moon (lunar eclipse) the alignment is not exact and no eclipse occurs. When the alignment occurs, we have an eclipse. The solar eclipses have a shadow that follows a trail on the Earth's surface, and sometimes it is inconvenient to attend it. The lunar eclipses are generally visible to the night side of Earth.
I don't know what you mean by the lunar eclipse shadow being on "the wrong half." We see only the visible half of the Moon in the first place (it always faces the Earth because its rotation has the same period as its orbit, by being tidally locked).
Airplanes fly in the atmosphere, which is a viscous medium. It is carried along with the Earth's surface by friction, similar to bodies of open water. An airplane can be said to "swim" through the air by using fluid dynamics (propulsion and lift). To travel, it only needs to attain a velocity in the air that gives it the required velocity on the ground. If there are headwinds, the ground velocity will be less than the air velocity, and the flight will take longer. If there are tailwinds, the ground velocity will be greater than the air velocity and the flight will be shorter. (If you are shooting ballistic missiles, however, you will have to take the Earth's rotation into account if you are shooting east or west. Since the Earth rotates to the east, shooting in that direction will require less velocity for a given distance, versus shooting west, which will require more velocity to make up for the motion of its launch location.)
The flight of birds is not affected by the Earth's rotation, as they are carried along by the viscosity of the air. Breezes have more influence over their motion. (It also seems to be true that birds navigate by an ability to sense Earth's magnetic field, which guide them for long migrations.)
It is basically impossible to feel the acceleration of the Earth's rotation; it is too small compared to other normal forces in our life. But it does affect the shape of the Earth, providing the oblate ellipsoid shape from the effects of the centrifugal "force." There are various slight accelerations that we must account for in calculating satellite orbits, but all far too small for human senses to be aware of them. Go ahead and calculate them. You will probably find that the accelerations are equivalent to being out of vertical by some small degree, which we would not notice.
We would never "feel" the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, as we are orbiting with the Earth according to the same trajectory. The nature of being in an orbit is that you don't feel any acceleration (the "zero gravity" condition).
It is probably true that there would be a tidal difference in the Sun's gravity between people at noon and people at midnight. But what would this difference be? The radius of the Earth is about 6378 km. The radius of Earth's orbit is about 150 million km. The difference in solar gravity would therefore be about 0.017% If you figure this is going to be less than Earth gravity (because Earth gravity clearly holds us on the Earth) this would be a force difference of no more than 34 thousandths of a pound for a 200-pound person. We make up for imbalances far greater than that. We wouldn't notice it, (In most of these questions, the answers emerge from working out the numbers.)
I hope these help. Glad to tackle any other questions.
Thank you for the very detailed and extensive replies in order.
The major follow-up about the crepuscular rays is that they can diverge dramatically even during the early afternoon over the ocean. The divergence of this when I can see the sky above and the sun within the clouds makes me pause.
Thank you for pointing out the distance- perspective since that is usually used to explain sunsets for local sun. I'm aware of the concept and it's great to bring up for the optics that we see on our Earth. And thanks for using the meteor example for perspective.
For eclipses, here's a video for the shadow: https://youtu.be/QUkjb4bbjpc
I appreciate your detailed response about the eclipse. That's exactly what i would teach people before.
I briefly touch upon the flying in my other response to RaymondBPinelli. As for the rockets, will they need to adjust for the rotation shooting from north to south? As I've read, the spin rate can differ in locations on the Earth. If you're shooting from the equator at a location directly north, by the time the rocket lands in the Earth's reference frame, it would need some adjustment, right?
With the birds movements, there are multiple factors in it as you both have mentioned. Spending the past few months watching birds flying in circles, against the wind, randomly has encouraged me to keep questioning and observing. It's the birds that are flying against the 5-15 mph wind that looks unusual to me. Thank you for pointing out the magnetism. I think that plays a much more critical role in life than we're led to believe.
Thanks for addressing the acceleration component of my post. Since we do experience acceleration with many other objects and forces that we interact with. But since the Earth is much more massive, wouldn't ANY acceleration be felt? Think of driving a car on a curve. We feel that acceleration. So, at a far more massive scale, we would feel even a 0.01% acceleration or deceleration of the entire Earth. And many objects have orbits. Just because it is in an orbit doesn't mean that you don't feel acceleration. The direction of the acceleration would be the same. Spin a rope or something around your finger and you can feel the direction of acceleration. And on an elliptical orbit, it would be more noticeable.
Thank you again for your openness for discussion. I've shared a lot of this information before I kept questioning. A couple other questions for consideration: NASA has been shown to make MANY glitches and errors in their videos. Do we keep giving them the benefit of doubt or do we question further?
And would you be open to looking into how a Flat Earth model works? It has been the most beautiful and freeing red pill I've ever taken. The majority of Flat Earth content has been censored or hidden from search with Google.
I'll assume you're being serious and actually try to give you an answer. I'm not qualified to address most of these questions, but the one about a plane having to fly 1500mph to fly west to east really concerns me regarding your grasp of physics. Frame of reference is a really important concept to understand before you can reliably make observations about the world around you.
The earth's atmosphere, while loose and able to move around through winds and weather patterns, is still a part of earth, and is subject to the earth's rotation just like the water in a spinning glass on a turntable. Spin it for long enough and the water inside will maintain the same rotation as the glass.
Ignoring local wind currents, there is little difference between flying east or west, although the days will pass slightly faster as you fly east and slightly slower when flying west. The atmosphere (which planes need in order to fly) spins with the earth, everything on earth spins with the earth, and thus, the earth is our frame of reference. Unless you are approaching earth from space, outside the influence of our atmosphere, the ground beneath your feet will always be your frame of reference.
If this still isn't making sense, compare getting into a plane with climbing onto a motor boat. Both air and water are subject to earth's rotation, and the vehicles create thrust by pushing air/water backwards in order to go forwards.
I'm not trying to be rude, but if I can so easily pick apart one of your arguments I do understand, why should I assume your other arguments would hold up to similar scrutiny?
I appreciate your sincerity and detailed reply. I'm happy to read through your explanation and address your points. You don't sound rude to me and thank you for taking the time to address the points succinctly.
Yes, I understand the frame of reference used for kinematic and relativistic motions.
Yes, I'm acknowledging the point that you made that the plane flies within the atmosphere moving in the rotation of the Earth.
I use the 1500 mph example since the Earth's rotation is calculated to be 1000 mph, right? And I'm estimating that the plane is flying at 500 mph.
Using an external frame of reference from space, as you mentioned, the plane would need to be flying at 1500 mph as an external observer watches a plane travel from LA to NYC, right? Because if it did not reach that speed to an external observer, then it could never catch up to its destination.
Then, using the Earth's frame of reference, the plane would be moving at 500 mph within the atmosphere.
So, moving WITH the direction of the rotation would be easier or more difficult? At the point in the questioning, the birds and helicopters example starts bending these rules of reality...
As for your comment about the days passing faster or slower depending on the direction, doesn't that just tie in with the time zones? If I leave at 6 am Pacific from LA to Dallas on a 3-hour flight, I should get there at 11 am Central or 9 am Pacific. We're nowhere near traveling at the speed of 0.1c or much higher for time dilation or contraction to happen.
And for the water spinning in glass example, I can do that experiment right now to see it. But what's the experiment look like with a wet tennis ball? Wouldn't all of the water move outwards?
Thank you and everyone else for the replies to my part of this discussion. I'm happy to keep reading and replying later in the day.
We lost our way when people started using digital calculators instead of slide rules...
The intimate relationships to math were replaced with lazy "the computer says so"...
Old NASA people could calculate the reentry angle in their heads... now people can't make change for an overcooked thing they claim is a hamburger.
Ever used a slide rule? I have. And if you've never done complex, high-accuracy gasdynamics calculations, you have no idea what a godsend digital calculators are (not to mention computers). You still need to understand the math in order to frame the equations. Anyone can turn off their critical thinking, but those who do so are fools.
I can bet you they would only know the angle in their heads if they had previously precalculated a rule of thumb. I have many criticisms of NASA, but you would be way out of line to think they don't know their level of mathematics. (This pertains to space engineering. Regarding "climate science" NASA seems to be corrupting the historical data, thus violating the supreme principle of science: "Thou shalt bear no false witness.")
BTW... this reminds me of a good ole fashioned /. flame war / pissing contest and was a lot of fun...
grassy ass
(that's spanglish for THANKS MAN!!!)
I own half a dozen slide rules and have programmed in about 20 languages including 5 assemblers and have used a CRAY back in the day, used to talk with Don Becker (created the bonding linux ethernet driver to make a Beowulf cluster of ham sandwiches) on the regular so yeah, I get it.
And that "had previously precalculated a rule of thumb" is exactly the thing I am saying people are missing now...
Point is, the calculator does not help someone become intimate with the math.
Kinda like learning a few chords on the guitar may get you laid, it does not teach you music theory and how to compose / think in music.
People need to learn to think about and master the basics... like making fucking change would be a good start.
Learning to read ... at least at a 5th grade level would be most gooderest toooo.
NASA has become a shit show for the most part... I am waiting on them to go all in on flat earth next... and make the covering one eye their new symbol...
Happy to listen to your explanation of how latitude and longitude are derived. Those values still work exactly as you'd expecf on a Flat Earth map.
If you don't believe me, check it out on the WHO and UN logo.... yep, same latitude and longitude values.
Thank you for the three messages. I've been away from GA.win today as noted in my earlier message. I appreciate your patience and resources.
Yes, I've calculated many spherical coordinates using the visual that you linked.
The latitude lines of 80 degrees N, 70, 60 and so forth can still correspond to a specific radius if you look at the ball from the top down. In fact, the spherical coordinates value indicates that each of those lines would have a specific radius value, theta, and phi values. At each latitude line, the radius and phi angle would be fixed while the theta value changes.
And when you look at the same coordinate system on a flat map that is similar to what the WHO/UN use for their logo, there is a VERY simple and straightforward circular version of the latitudes and longitude values.
https://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/2015/09/rick-potvins-update-of-gleason-1895.html
The latitude and longitude values correspond correctly to the flat and globe models. Sydney is at -33.865143, 151.209900.
Happy to continue the discussion. I'm sorry if it seemed like I didn't read any of your messages since I just logged on to check the forum.
Which is....