|
|
Post by blackholesmatter on Aug 1, 2018 15:59:56 GMT
From what I could tell, the conversation went off the rails when there was disagreement about how distances are measured. I don't want to rehash that argument, as it seems rather pointless, but rather ask Mr Rowe a question-
If the distances given are inaccurate and riddled with discrepancies, as you have claimed, how come I can accurately map q route using Google maps and predict my arrival to the minute, even with an adjustment of traffic?
My problem with every alternative earth model, apart from the lack of evidence, is that simple real world applications prove it to be false. There is no way your theory can provide an explanation for my cell phone giving me real time directions. It's simply impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Aug 5, 2018 18:36:27 GMT
If the distances given are inaccurate and riddled with discrepancies, as you have claimed, how come I can accurately map q route using Google maps and predict my arrival to the minute, even with an adjustment of traffic? My issue with this is simple; you can't. I've tried, I've seen what GPS systems do, and they are always inaccurate. You spend a decent amount of time while it puzzles the route out, and then it constantly adjusts over the course of the journey. And on top of that, on simpler grounds, it has no way to predict the speed you'll go at. Will you always stay right on the limit? Do you take corners slower? Every driver is different and nothing can account for that. What they can be is close on smaller distances. That doesn't give them an accurate gauge of the straight line distance given roads aren't that straight, but rather a decent approximation of the distance along the roads from the landmark system GPS relies on (they gauge your location by measuring how far you are from set points, supposedly satellites). What is the significance of that? |
|
|
|
Post by blackholesmatter on Aug 7, 2018 1:26:57 GMT
If the distances given are inaccurate and riddled with discrepancies, as you have claimed, how come I can accurately map q route using Google maps and predict my arrival to the minute, even with an adjustment of traffic? My issue with this is simple; you can't. I've tried, I've seen what GPS systems do, and they are always inaccurate. You spend a decent amount of time while it puzzles the route out, and then it constantly adjusts over the course of the journey. And on top of that, on simpler grounds, it has no way to predict the speed you'll go at. Will you always stay right on the limit? Do you take corners slower? Every driver is different and nothing can account for that. What they can be is close on smaller distances. That doesn't give them an accurate gauge of the straight line distance given roads aren't that straight, but rather a decent approximation of the distance along the roads from the landmark system GPS relies on (they gauge your location by measuring how far you are from set points, supposedly satellites). What is the significance of that? The significance is that despite all the variables you listed such as unpredictability of roads, traffic lights, personal driving methods etc, it still gives me an accurate prediction of my ETA. Your being disingenuous suggesting it is so inaccurate- I find that almost every single time I use a map service I arrive within a minute of the estimation. So the significance is such that it only adds to strengthen my original question which you avoided. How can you accurately predict travel times on your model? |
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Aug 7, 2018 17:48:36 GMT
Short distance travel times are trivial; practise, existing data, suffices.
The fact that despite all the variables I listed, which you acknowledge must be present, you end up within a minute seems to speak far more of confirmation bias than any scientific measurement.
Your question was not avoided. Just because you do not like the answer does not mean it wasn't given.
Use a satnav and watch how the estimate will fluctuate wildly simply while you travel. Take a plane journey and see if the value you get is 'within a minute' of their estimate.
There's simply too much random error to account for.
And, to tie it back to what you're objecting to, my objection with the diameter thread was to try and translate that time to distance. Whatever else you can say about the journeys, you are both not travelling in a straight line, and not going at a constant speed.
I walk more often than drive, but the next few car journeys I take I'll run that experiment, post the data here, if you're interested.
|
|
