@BADecker,

   If you can't show the solution for measuring angular size with the eye I just provided has any errors, then you need to admit the Sun & Moon are both 32 nautical miles in diameter or you're the one at the funny farm. A 32 mile wide Moon debunks the claim man landed what appears to be a cardboard box wrapped in foil with bicycle parts sticking out on it.

https://i.imgur.com/zS0G3hs.jpg
version 2.1 -- https://i.imgur.com/15e5eZH.jpg

BTW the 90 deg angle marking is off and it's not an error as it can't be drawn at 90 deg due to optical convergence.

---

---

I can just stick my thumbs out then measure the base and top while one thumb stays at eye level.

oh really?

^^^ Clearly my ability to articulate the argument proves I've studied these physical experiments to some degree.

Your argument is always about me and never the subject matter at hand, clearly your interest lies with maintaining the status quo of "official" lies by any argument necessary (pipul) not determining facts from fiction.

[X-POST]

---

---

I posted an image (from NASA) showing what appears to be cardboard panels on the LEM already, they're probably the hard compressed type if that's any consolation.




   Aristarchus assumed the heliocentric model was true, then made distance calculation based on that assumption and applied them to his apparent size measurements. The Sun's angle can be measured directly against the horizon and it's 32 nautical miles wide; 1 minute = 1 nautical mile.




Relativity was created after the 1887 M&M experiment proved the Earth is motionless. It was created to replace the static aether with an alternative explanation that allowed for the heliocentric/copernican model. Sagnac proved the static aether with his experiment but relativists, homosexuals and jews cried that rotating frames of reference weren't accounted for. Then in 1939 Dufour & Prunier replicated the Sagnac experiment taking rotating frames of reference into account thus falsifying relativity.

P, E and C are not calculated from the diagram markings, they are calculated using measured and known values thus they are correct.

The marked angles can't be drawn at 90° due to optical convergence, hence the 90° angle notation to indicate their actual values. The reason for this is that parallel lines optically converge to a point at the horizon (see photograph with angle marked in red) but, physically parallel lines never converge. The 90° angle can be confirmed empirically by observing that the horizon line is at eye level.

---

---

I found this, it's made out of cardboard.

   How To Build A Homemade Sextant -- https://youtu.be/hOLjEj8OxJM

I created this to show how to measure the angular size of objects. If you see any errors let me know.

edit:
version 2.1
corrected calculation for A

@BADecker, the back of the napkin trigonometric illustration I made look like a game of hangman, or perhaps somebody being crucified.

I'm going with a known distance of 3 minutes based on the angular resolution limit of 1 minute with an elevation above the plain of 3/50 seconds and two measured angles.



edit:

So here's what the problem looks like after MS paint:

@odolvlobo,

   The image I posted is for proving that the angle defined in red is the same for every pole and, that the distance of the pole from the observer doesn't affect this angle. The image is a photograph not a human eye+sextant and, it shows the angle from a bit of a side perspective so you can see multiple poles and, that they all fit perfectly within the angle.

oh shit...

Look, I'm sorry if I'm not completely there yet either but some you are defiantly disinformation agents and cause me to fuck up and act fucked up.

I don't actually own a sextant I just know it measures angles between objects and that objects including the Sun can be measured based on the horizon and the angular limits of the human eye. All sources of information are corrupt and I'm forced to figure out everything with no help. My point is still valid even if the sextant usage is a bit more complex and possibly non-standard than I first realized. Your point about the red angle being different form what the sextant is measuring is also valid, sorry i fucked up there.

The Sun doesn't change apparent size (except under certain conditions) so measurement with the sextant is just the standard elevation above the horizon from the bottom and top of the Sun. The poles however do change apprent size and this has to be accounted for first to get the size measurement.

So what values do we know?

1. & 2. The distance to the horizon is ~3 miles for a 6 foot person.

3. The angle from the horizon to the top of the object.

4. the angle from the horizon to the bottom of the object.

5. 1 nautical mile = 1 minute.

6. Google says the angular resolution limit of the eye is 1 minute.

This is enough to calculate the 3rd side of the triangle, the height of the object. Right?

^^^ It's the human eye's angular resolution limit, this is the "one more piece of information" needed. The eye's angular resolution limit defines the vanishing point and distance to the horizon along with eye height.

When measuring size it's done from the horizon, you can see in the image I posted the angle in red never changes no matter how close or far away the pole is. This angle correlates with the poles physical height and can be measured directly with a sextant.

^^^ The Sun and Moon are both 32 minuets (nautical miles) across at an altitude of about 3100 miles as measured directly with a sextant.

Save your propaganda trash for somebody else, you can't measure distances or sizes based on apparent size. Not only that Aristarchus fucking assumes the heliocentric Copernican model with a giant Sun millions of miles away.

Angular measurements need to be done from the horizon like with a sextant.

^^^ How is he getting different angles for each pole if he's measuring the angle from the horizon? The angle illustrated in red proves all the poles have the same angle.

The vertex is at the horizon not the observer, fucking retard.

^^^ If you're going to insist that the gods have magical powers and create things out of thin air, and the bible is magical fantasy or some shit then this is the end of this discussion.

Also there is no fucking outer space, we're covered by a steel dome surrounded by water.

^^^ Come back and post when you pull your head out of your ass, the Gods are subject to physical laws the same as we are; they don't just create shit out thin air by snapping their fingers.

While we're on this off-topic I should note that we are not men, the average man (the folks in the bible) is 15 feet tall and lives for 1000 years. We are the son of man.

^^ They're immortal titans, giants 2 miles tall. During construction I surmise that the "days" lasted for as long as needed not just just 24 hours. The bible even says the light was created before the Sun and Moon, they just switched it on and off.

^^^ So what you're saying is that you're a cuck, and you're just going to swallow the idea that nothing exploded one day for no reason and, the shit from the explosion came together and created Earth because of an unproven theoretical force (gravity), that's based on a theory (relativity 1905) that's been falsified (Sagnac|D&P 1939) for 80 years?

I'll give you a tip, if nothing exploded then it didn't happen.

Also I may have described the Sun's light as being somewhat like a spotlight shining down at some point but I've always maintained it's a projection since I discovered there's a mirrored steel dome above us.

^^^ He's claiming to get different angles for each pole but, the image proves via the red angle that all the poles share the same angle.

So tell me shit for brains, how's he getting different angles for each pole if he's measuring the angle from the horizon (caused by convergence to a point on a plain)?

^^^ They don't have shit be because guess where a lot of answers come from?  


OK, so here's what I think might be going on with the tides...



The Sun, Moon and stars are projected lights and they need a fuckton amount of power, most of this power is projected but the solenoids in the projector get fucking hot, really fucking hot and they need massive amounts of coolant. This is where sea water comes in, it's pumped through magnetite channels via a process called magnetohydrodynamic pumping where an electric current is passed through the salt water creating a magnetic field that pumps the water. The direction of water flow is reversed in a cycle to ensure the channels don't become clogged and this cycle causes the tides.



Make no mistake, the Earth is a high-tech engineered structure.

^^^ I can only provide a theoretical model at this point. I can however prove or at least show with evidence that the Moon doesn't have fuck all to do with the tides.

Space (actually a steel dome) is fake and gravity (actually electromagnetism) is a hoax. I think nutildah probably knows the truth, or at least that everything the public is told is complete bullshit and is playing dumb to help confuse and mislead people.

^^^ How are you getting different angles for each pole if you're taking 2 readings from the horizon and subtracting the difference? (measuring the poles would actually take 4 readings, 2 above the horizon line and 2 below) The angle illustrated in red proves this impossible.

How can you be this fucking retarded? I think you're a fucking liar pretending to be dumb to confuse and mislead people.

edit:

Whoops, looks like I was a bit confused here too. See post #15403.

^^^ The angle defined in red is the same for every pole, how are you getting a different value for each pole?