notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 17, 2019, 11:30:16 AM 

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.






Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.


BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


June 17, 2019, 02:24:28 PM 

^^^ 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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 8
Merit: 0


June 18, 2019, 05:26:30 AM 

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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2996
Merit: 1660


June 18, 2019, 06:19:29 AM 

This is what these faggots are so desperately trying to hide: https://i.imgur.com/zEOvqSg.jpgYou 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.

Buy stuff on Amazon with BTC or convert Amazon points to BTC here: Purse.ioJoin an antisignature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.



notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 18, 2019, 06:25:09 AM Last edit: June 18, 2019, 08:08:04 AM by 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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2996
Merit: 1660


June 18, 2019, 07:21:18 AM Last edit: June 18, 2019, 07:41:06 AM by 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.

Buy stuff on Amazon with BTC or convert Amazon points to BTC here: Purse.ioJoin an antisignature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.



notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 18, 2019, 07:28:15 AM 

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




odolvlobo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2996
Merit: 1660


June 18, 2019, 07:36:47 AM 

^^^ 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.

Buy stuff on Amazon with BTC or convert Amazon points to BTC here: Purse.ioJoin an antisignature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.



notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 18, 2019, 07:51:01 AM Last edit: June 22, 2019, 03:27:57 AM by 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


June 18, 2019, 08:38:41 AM 

^^^ 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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 18, 2019, 10:45:48 AM 

^^^ 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


June 18, 2019, 11:31:33 AM 

^^^ 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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 18, 2019, 12:35:44 PM 

^^^ 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
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 96
Merit: 1


June 18, 2019, 01:24:29 PM 

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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


June 18, 2019, 02:40:18 PM 

^^^ 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.




notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 18, 2019, 03:19:23 PM 

^^^ 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.




odolvlobo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2996
Merit: 1660


June 18, 2019, 03:46:13 PM Last edit: June 18, 2019, 04:04:15 PM by odolvlobo 

^^^ 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.
I'm sorry if I'm slow. Obviously our points of view are very different. I understand that the angle of the red lines doesn't depend on which pole and that somehow you can use that angle to determine the height of the poles. But I'm not there yet. The angle of the red lines is about 60 degrees, but obviously the poles aren't 3600 nm tall. Is it 3600 nm to the horizon? Also, how do you measure the angle of the sun when there is only one? How do you determine the vertex so that you can measure the angle?

Buy stuff on Amazon with BTC or convert Amazon points to BTC here: Purse.ioJoin an antisignature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.



BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


June 18, 2019, 05:51:28 PM 

^^^ 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.
Are you saying that the human eye has limits when reading the trigonometry calculations on the sextant? We don't hold the sextant far enough away from us so that it disappears into the vanishing point. Or is it only the trig limits when the 32 degrees is the only thing that shows up on the sextant? We still need another calculation to find distance and/or size. Or is it the human eye limits reading only the degrees on trig tables? We don't hold trig tables far enough away from us so that they disappear into the vanishing point. The vanishing point you are talking about is the vanishing point that makes the degrees the only thing necessary for finding distance and size. Standard science doesn't use this kind of vanishing point for calculating distance and size. You need at least one more calculation to find distance and size besides the degree calc. What is the other calculation you are using, and where are you getting it? Of course making measurements is done from the horizon. As long as you are standing on the surface of the earth, you are standing on a horizon. Why? Because there are an infinite number of horizons. The things that determine a particular horizon location are, the distance away from the horizon, the height the horizon is measured at, and the direction that the measurement is taken in. Consider two people looking at each other from different horizon points. How far apart are they? If they are only 6 inches tall, can they see each other on a horizon that two 6 foot tall people would see each other on? The sextant only measures degrees. You need to compare two sextant readings of two different sets of objects to begin to tell distance and size. This is the start into using parallaxes.




notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 18, 2019, 06:20:46 PM Last edit: June 18, 2019, 06:38:05 PM by notbatman 

@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 nonstandard 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?




BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


June 18, 2019, 06:46:46 PM 

^^^ But the ONLY thing we know from direct, simple sextant measurements is the angle... not the distance or the size. Distance and size measurements come from other sources, which might include some complex sextant measurements, as in parallax measurements.




