Flat Earth

[notbatman]

^^^ Fuck you faggot, trying to conflate apparent size with angles measured against the horizon.

[1714811141]

1714811141

[1714811141]

1714811141

[1714811141]

1714811141

[odolvlobo]

^^^ Fuck you faggot, trying to conflate apparent size with angles measured against the horizon.

Whose doing the conflation? You are saying that 1 minute (an angle) is equal to 1 nautical mile (a size).

I don't understand why you disagree with me. I'm really trying to understand. I've shown you my math. Please stop name-calling and just point out my mistake.

[notbatman]

This is what these faggots are so desperately trying to hide:



You can see the angle never changes no matter how close the telephone pole is. They feign ignorance in an attempt to lead people away from the truth, pretending apparent size is the angle depicted above in red.

The angle in red never fucking changes and it's based on the human eye, it doesn't matter how fucking close the object is!

The pole could be hanging from a fucking helicopter off in the distance, up in sky and it would still have the same fucking angle! Up, down, left, right, close up, far away it doesn't fucking matter the angle DOES NOT CHANGE EVER!!!!!!


The Sun is measured directly with a sextant to be 32 minuets or nautical miles in diameter. This would stand up in court.

[tushartester1]

On a rather calm yet breezy day, get out to the ocean. Through a telescope, watch a sailing ship coming in towards land. At a great distance away, only the topmost parts of the masts are visible on the horizon

[karen442]

f coarse you ask "but why would they lie, I don't understand". They lie because they're hiding the fact the Earth is flat and there is no space to travel to or in. We're inside a giant underwater terrarium and atmospheric life is an artificially created novelty.

[notbatman]

On a rather calm yet breezy day, get out to the ocean. Through a telescope, watch a sailing ship coming in towards land. At a great distance away, only the topmost parts of the masts are visible on the horizon

It's because of perspective, convergence and atmospheric refraction. Now go kill yourself!

On a rather calm yet breezy day, get out to the ocean. Through a telescope, watch a sailing ship coming in towards land. At a great distance away, only the topmost parts of the masts are visible on the horizonOn a rather calm yet breezy day, get out to the ocean. Through a telescope, watch a sailing ship coming in towards land. At a great distance away, only the topmost parts of the masts are visible on the horizon

It's because of perspective, convergence and atmospheric refraction. Now go kill yourself!

I really hate having to repeat myself.

[BADecker]

^^^ But perspective, convergence and atmospheric refraction have nothing to do with the fact that the ship is coming up over the horizon. All of the perspective, convergence and atmospheric refraction have to do with observations.

[karen442]

of coarse you ask "but why would they lie, I don't understand". They lie because they're hiding the fact the Earth is flat and there is no space to travel to or in. We're inside a giant underwater terrarium and atmospheric life is an artificially created novelty.

[odolvlobo]

This is what these faggots are so desperately trying to hide:
https://i.imgur.com/zEOvqSg.jpg
You can see the angle never changes no matter how close the telephone pole is. They feign ignorance in an attempt to lead people away from the truth, pretending apparent size is the angle depicted above in red.
The angle in red never fucking changes and it's based on the human eye, it doesn't matter how fucking close the object is!
The pole could be hanging from a fucking helicopter off in the distance, up in sky and it would still have the same fucking angle! Up, down, left, right, close up, far away it doesn't fucking matter the angle DOES NOT CHANGE EVER!!!!!!

I don't understand what you are trying to show, and I don't know if this is related, but the angle does depend on how close to the plane of the poles you are. If you are not standing a mile away instead of next to the poles, the angle would be quite small.

The Sun is measured directly with a sextant to be 32 minuets or nautical miles in diameter. This would stand up in court.

I don't disagree with the angular size of the sun being 32 minutes. I'm just trying to figure out how 1 minute can equal 1 nautical mile. You are good at drawing diagrams. Please draw one that shows how 1 minute equals 1 nautical mile. Thanks.

[notbatman]

The following user sent me a private message. However I'd to take the time to answer here so everybody can know.

You have good knowledge on the topic. I would like to add few thing that Through a telescope, watch a sailing ship coming in towards land. At a great distance away, only the topmost parts of the masts are visible on the horizon On a rather calm yet breezy day, get out to the ocean.

It's because of perspective, convergence and atmospheric refraction. Now go kill yourself and make sure to take BADecker with you.






@odolvlobo,



   I'm showing that the red angle is the same for all the poles. The distance of a pole from the observer does not change the angle in red because the angle is taken from the horizon. If the poles were a foot taller the red angle would be greater and if they were a foot shorter the red angle would be less.

Do you follow?

If I measure a pole with a sextant against the horizon the measurement will be a several seconds. Then if I measure the pole with a measuring tape the pole will be several feet tall.

Still following?

There will always be a 1:1 correlation between the pole's angle against the horizon and it's height. Because the angle is observed with the human eye when measuring with a sextant, it's the eyes angular resolution limit that defines the distance to the horizon and thus the angle measured.

Get it?

[odolvlobo]

I'm showing that the red angle is the same for all the poles. The distance of a pole from the observer does not change the angle in red because the angle is taken from the horizon. If the poles were a foot taller the red angle would be greater and if they were a foot shorter the red angle would be less.
Do you follow?

Yes. The angle is due to perspective and it depends on the height of the poles and your distance from the plane of the poles.

If I measure the pole with a sextant against the horizon the reading will be a several seconds. Then if I measure the pole with a measuring tape the pole will be several feet tall.
Still following?

No. Which pole are you measuring with the sextant? Each pole will give you a different value.

There will always be a 1:1 correlation between the pole's angle against the horizon and it's height. Because the angle is observed with the human eye when measuring with a sextant, it's the eyes angular resolution limit that defines the distance to the horizon and thus the angle measured.
Get it?

No. You can only say that if you have a line of poles so that you can measure an angle based on where the poles converge to in the distance.

[notbatman]

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

[odolvlobo]

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

That's not what a sextant measures. It measures the angle above the horizon and not the angle to some point of convergence.

To measure the angular size of the sun, you measure the angles to the top and bottom and subtract. You get 32 minutes. You would do the same with the poles and would get a different value for each pole.

[notbatman]

^^^ 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.

[Astargath]

^^^ 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.

Dude im not an expert on this and I understand what he said. He said a sextant does NOT measure the angle to some point of convergence like you are doing, are you sure you are not on drugs?

[notbatman]

^^^ 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)?

[Astargath]

^^^ 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)?

Are you dumb or what? A sextant does NOT measure what you are showing with thr red lines, aka to some point of convergence, it measures the angle ABOVE the horizon, jesus christ.

[notbatman]

^^^ 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.

[CryptoAleczar]

How as an individual can I know if the Earth is a sphere or a flat disc? What experiment can I do that doesn't involve trusting information from a 3rd party that would prove what the geometry really is?

Apply the laws of physics to the round earth and to the flat, on which of them they work, that is true  But still, most people are so naive that they can believe in square earth 

[BADecker]

^^^ 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)?

Are you dumb or what? A sextant does NOT measure what you are showing with thr red lines, aka to some point of convergence, it measures the angle ABOVE the horizon, jesus christ.

^^^ 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.

The angle is important. But you can't tell distance or size of a faraway object without at least one more piece of information. You can't do it with a sextant or a rangefinder or a transit... not without at least one more piece of info besides the angle.

If you can find size or distance with any of these tools, it's because there is more info besides the angle built right into the way they operate. Until you get the other info, you won't know why they work the way they do, or how they tell distance or size of a distant object.