notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 26, 2019, 07:04:48 PM 

^^^ Fuck, like you've ever measured and calculated the distance to sun yourself and got 93,000,000 miles? Everybody just trusts the fucking liars at NASA to provide factual information.
There's enough information from the angular measurements and the known distance to the horizon to make the calculation, I just need to figure it out.
Yes my first attempt was horrific, very horrific, but I'm including the apparent size this time and I think I'm getting closer... The only value I'm assuming is correct is the angular size limit of the eye, and considering the nautical mile is based on this value, and that I have peer reviewed documentation it's not really much of an assumption.
It's simply a matter of time before I derive the correct equations and they give constant results with variable inputs. Yes I believe the 32 mile diameter and 3,100 mile distance values are correct but I'm actually trying to prove it. You just go with whatever your told by the men in small hats and never question any of it.








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


Astargath


June 26, 2019, 08:31:36 PM 

^^^ Fuck, like you've ever measured and calculated the distance to sun yourself and got 93,000,000 miles? Everybody just trusts the fucking liars at NASA to provide factual information.
There's enough information from the angular measurements and the known distance to the horizon to make the calculation, I just need to figure it out.
Yes my first attempt was horrific, very horrific, but I'm including the apparent size this time and I think I'm getting closer... The only value I'm assuming is correct is the angular size limit of the eye, and considering the nautical mile is based on this value, and that I have peer reviewed documentation it's not really much of an assumption.
It's simply a matter of time before I derive the correct equations and they give constant results with variable inputs. Yes I believe the 32 mile diameter and 3,100 mile distance values are correct but I'm actually trying to prove it. You just go with whatever your told by the men in small hats and never question any of it.
Again admitting that all along you simply believed what other youtubers told you and yet you have been claiming to know it's close to us. You are a liar, exposing yourself at this point basically. Yes you believe those values are correct but why? What made you believe that? The youtubers? ''You just go with whatever your told by the men in small hats and never question any of it.'' And you just go with what youtubers tell you and never calculate or experiment for yourself, LOL.




notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 26, 2019, 08:52:08 PM 

I'm attempting to calculate this myself and you're accusing me of not calculating things myself, fuck off. You're a fucking coward!




sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1646
born once atheist


June 27, 2019, 01:39:59 AM 

....., I just need to figure it out.
Yes my first attempt was horrific, very horrific, .....
It's simply a matter of time before I derive the correct equations and they give constant results with variable inputs. ......

Bitcoin...the future of all monetary transactions...and always will be



notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 27, 2019, 10:26:47 AM 

^^^ smells like fear to me




sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1646
born once atheist


June 27, 2019, 11:04:57 AM Last edit: June 27, 2019, 09:30:42 PM by sirazimuth 

^^um... no.
Everytime I peruse this retarded thread (just for a belly laugh when I'm bored), I smell bullshit.
I’m hoping the Bruce Wanker flat earth video will be out soon. Jeeeezus, now that would be phukking epic....

Bitcoin...the future of all monetary transactions...and always will be



notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 28, 2019, 01:53:35 AM 

^^^ All I need to do is prove that the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile applies to the apparent measured size of the Sun. Can you prove that it doesn't?
If you want to call bullshit then show us the money dickweed.




Astargath


June 28, 2019, 09:07:41 AM 

^^^ All I need to do is prove that the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile applies to the apparent measured size of the Sun. Can you prove that it doesn't?
If you want to call bullshit then show us the money dickweed.
And again admitting to be a liar all this time. I thought you knew for sure all those claims and now you are saying that you have to prove them. Why have you been claiming all that bullshit for 3 years? Why would you just believe it?




notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 28, 2019, 09:43:05 AM Last edit: June 28, 2019, 01:06:28 PM by notbatman 

^^^ You're a massive piece of shit, you know that right? I know the Sun is small, close and in motion and you start screaming that I'm liar for trying to prove it? Just fuck off and die already. e The Sun measures 32 minutes in diameter and there's one nautical mile per measured minute. If this is wrong then fucking prove it you worthless sack of shit. Ask any mariner who knows how to use a sextant or any book on the subject and they'll tell you 1 nm = 1 min.
Show me the fucking money!




af_newbie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1295


June 28, 2019, 10:19:06 AM 

^^^ You're a massive piece of shit, you know that right? I know the Sun is small, close and in motion and you start screaming that I'm liar for trying to prove it? Just fuck off and die already.
The Sun measures 32 minuets in diameter and there's one nautical mile per measured minute. If this is wrong then fucking prove it you worthless sack of shit. Ask any mariner who knows how to use a sextant or any book on the subject and they'll tell you 1 nm = 1 min.
Show me the fucking money!
Minuet is a dance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinuetI don't think you will find any 'mariner' who would want to dance the minuet. LOL.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.



BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


June 28, 2019, 02:17:23 PM 

^^^ You're a massive piece of shit, you know that right? I know the Sun is small, close and in motion and you start screaming that I'm liar for trying to prove it? Just fuck off and die already. e The Sun measures 32 minutes in diameter and there's one nautical mile per measured minute. If this is wrong then fucking prove it you worthless sack of shit. Ask any mariner who knows how to use a sextant or any book on the subject and they'll tell you 1 nm = 1 min.
Show me the fucking money!
Look at it this way. Find a piece of flat land somewhere, say, Kansas. Now, you will have to prepare this ahead of time. Pick a spot where you know the sun will be directly overhead, say, at about noon. Since the sun travels in an eastwest direction, get somebody to stand 16 nm east of the spot where the sun will be directly overhead, and get another person to stand 16 nm directly west of the spot. Stand them so that if you draw a straight line between the two people, the line would pass through the spot where the sun is directly overhead, and this spot would be right in the middle of the line, kinda like this >>> ·+· . (The two dots are the people. The vertical line shows the center of the horizontal distance the people are apart. The intersect is where the sun is directly overhead.) If the two people look straight up, they should each be looking directly at opposite edges of the sun. But they aren't. Even transits or telescopes will show that they are still looking at the center of the sun. This means that the sun must be far wider than you suggest, or that there is some contradiction in you calculations somewhere. Because of the size of the earth, any atmospheric distortion would be too small to notice looking straight up. Perspective isn't included, because the guys are looking directly at the sun, even with the telescopes, not at some width where they need to focus perspectively.




Astargath


June 28, 2019, 02:50:04 PM 

^^^ You're a massive piece of shit, you know that right? I know the Sun is small, close and in motion and you start screaming that I'm liar for trying to prove it? Just fuck off and die already. e The Sun measures 32 minutes in diameter and there's one nautical mile per measured minute. If this is wrong then fucking prove it you worthless sack of shit. Ask any mariner who knows how to use a sextant or any book on the subject and they'll tell you 1 nm = 1 min.
Show me the fucking money!
Exactly, you are trying to prove it but havent done so how do you know if you havent proved it yet? Did you just beljeve it or what?




notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 28, 2019, 03:15:14 PM 

... Show me the fucking money!
Look at it this way. Find a piece of flat land somewhere, say, Kansas. Now, you will have to prepare this ahead of time. Pick a spot where you know the sun will be directly overhead, say, at about noon. Since the sun travels in an eastwest direction, get somebody to stand 16 nm east of the spot where the sun will be directly overhead, and get another person to stand 16 nm directly west of the spot. Stand them so that if you draw a straight line between the two people, the line would pass through the spot where the sun is directly overhead, and this spot would be right in the middle of the line, kinda like this >>> ·+· . (The two dots are the people. The vertical line shows the center of the horizontal distance the people are apart. The intersect is where the sun is directly overhead.) If the two people look straight up, they should each be looking directly at opposite edges of the sun. But they aren't. Even transits or telescopes will show that they are still looking at the center of the sun. This means that the sun must be far wider than you suggest, or that there is some contradiction in you calculations somewhere. Because of the size of the earth, any atmospheric distortion would be too small to notice looking straight up. Perspective isn't included, because the guys are looking directly at the sun, even with the telescopes, not at some width where they need to focus perspectively. I've already considered this scenario, no dice. The Sun is ~32 miles wide and the observers need to be farther than that apart. At that distance+ the question of whether the earth is flat or curves at 8" per mile^2 becomes an issue, and the globalist will start injecting the refraction is bending the light around the globe argument. The globalist (with a small hat) will kick the can so far down the road posing one augment after another for why the Earth is actually bent, that he's able to muddy the water while wasting time and effort and completely shut it down. After much analysis I've come to realize that the plane where the Sun's light is refracted is well, a plain; a level layer of dense gas. This (the plane) and the linear refractive magnifying effect is why the one minute per nautical mile applies to celestial objects. The fact there's zero refraction at 90 degrees allows for the Sun's true diameter to be measured. ... Show me the fucking money!
Exactly, you are trying to prove it but havent done so how do you know if you havent proved it yet? Did you just beljeve it or what? You might want to check the last 773 pages, I'm fairly sure you'll find I've posted some valid reasons on why the Copernican model is a crock of shit.




BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


June 28, 2019, 03:36:54 PM 

... Show me the fucking money!
Look at it this way. Find a piece of flat land somewhere, say, Kansas. Now, you will have to prepare this ahead of time. Pick a spot where you know the sun will be directly overhead, say, at about noon. Since the sun travels in an eastwest direction, get somebody to stand 16 nm east of the spot where the sun will be directly overhead, and get another person to stand 16 nm directly west of the spot. Stand them so that if you draw a straight line between the two people, the line would pass through the spot where the sun is directly overhead, and this spot would be right in the middle of the line, kinda like this >>> ·+· . (The two dots are the people. The vertical line shows the center of the horizontal distance the people are apart. The intersect is where the sun is directly overhead.) If the two people look straight up, they should each be looking directly at opposite edges of the sun. But they aren't. Even transits or telescopes will show that they are still looking at the center of the sun. This means that the sun must be far wider than you suggest, or that there is some contradiction in you calculations somewhere. Because of the size of the earth, any atmospheric distortion would be too small to notice looking straight up. Perspective isn't included, because the guys are looking directly at the sun, even with the telescopes, not at some width where they need to focus perspectively. I've already considered this scenario, no dice. The Sun is ~32 miles wide and the observers need to be farther than that apart. At that distance+ the question of whether the earth is flat or curves at 8" per mile^2 becomes an issue, and the globalist will start injecting the refraction is bending the light around the globe argument. The globalist (with a small hat) will kick the can so far down the road posing one augment after another for why the Earth is actually bent, and he's able to muddy the water while wasting time and effort and completely shut it down. After much analysis I've come to realize that the plane where the Sun's light is refracted is well, a plain; a level layer of dense gas. This (the plane) and the linear refractive magnifying effect is why the one minute per nautical mile applies to celestial objects. The fact there's zero refraction at 90 degrees allows for the Sun's true diameter to be measured. My idea was to show the sun from a FE observation. Kansas is reasonably flat. Thirtytwo nm is not that big of a distance. It wouldn't matter (in my scenario) if the earth was a FE or GE. Both would give the same results if the sun were a 32 nm wide object up at about 3,000 miles high. To repeat. Certainly if the earth were flat, my model would prove the sun to be 32 nm wide, or not. And the reason why it would work on a GE is that the size of the GE would make this measuring work as though the earth were flat. Since your "no dice" has to do with some thoughts on the FE or GE shape of the earth, it doesn't have to do with the points of my measurement. Let's first get the size of the sun down accurately, and prove that we know it's size without guessing. Then we can use it to help determine if the earth is flat or not. Why do the observers need to be farther apart? If they are the same distance apart as the sun, then looking straight up should point them at the opposite edges of the sun, no matter how wide the sun is... except if it is wider than the whole FE. Standard math and trig show this. Calculus isn't needed to show this.




notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 28, 2019, 03:52:31 PM 

^^^ I know the Sun's exact size from the 90 degree measurement, it's simply a matter of proving/showing that the 1 minute per mile ratio used on the ground also applies to celestial objects.
The refractive layer is key here, I now think odolvlobo could have been on to something when he mentioned it. I just need to take step back and approach the problem from another (no pun intended) angle.




BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


June 28, 2019, 08:25:51 PM Last edit: June 28, 2019, 08:36:47 PM by BADecker 

... Show me the fucking money!
Look at it this way. Find a piece of flat land somewhere, say, Kansas. Now, you will have to prepare this ahead of time. Pick a spot where you know the sun will be directly overhead, say, at about noon. Since the sun travels in an eastwest direction, get somebody to stand 16 nm east of the spot where the sun will be directly overhead, and get another person to stand 16 nm directly west of the spot. Stand them so that if you draw a straight line between the two people, the line would pass through the spot where the sun is directly overhead, and this spot would be right in the middle of the line, kinda like this >>> ·+· . (The two dots are the people. The vertical line shows the center of the horizontal distance the people are apart. The intersect is where the sun is directly overhead.) If the two people look straight up, they should each be looking directly at opposite edges of the sun. But they aren't. Even transits or telescopes will show that they are still looking at the center of the sun. This means that the sun must be far wider than you suggest, or that there is some contradiction in you calculations somewhere. Because of the size of the earth, any atmospheric distortion would be too small to notice looking straight up. Perspective isn't included, because the guys are looking directly at the sun, even with the telescopes, not at some width where they need to focus perspectively. ^^^ I know the Sun's exact size from the 90 degree measurement, it's simply a matter of proving/showing that the 1 minute per mile ratio used on the ground also applies to celestial objects. The refractive layer is key here, I now think odolvlobo could have been on to something when he mentioned it. I just need to take step back and approach the problem from another (no pun intended) angle. Well, of course we know the sun's exact size. My calc, above, repeated in this quote shows how you and I both calculated it absolutely using the 90 degree measurement. On a FE, 32 degrees equals the sun's size. You have said this often in the past. You have shown how 32 degrees equals 32 nm. My calc simply shows the most logical way to apply the 32 degrees/nm to the sun's size. Since the earth is flat (right?), simply look straight up from opposite ends of the 32 nm. This will give you the 90 degree angle, because the flat earth is 90 degrees with respect to looking straight up. If the sun were off in the distance somewhere, at other angles to both people in my calculations, then there might be some other calc that goes into it. But since: 1. The earth is flat; 2. 32 degrees = 32 nm; 3. The people are looking straight up (90 degrees to the FE) at opposite edges of the sun; 4. Simple trig shows that the sun is 32 nm wide, no matter how high it is above. If the sun is very far away, you might need some kind of super transit with each of the people, so that they can be sure that they are looking absolutely, perfectly straight up. But there you have it. A directly straight up view that determines the sun's width. If the sun is wider or narrower, we have to change the 90 degrees to the FE that the people look up. The 90 degrees is no longer applicable. So, take your pick. Either the sun is 32 nm wide, or the angles are different than 90 degrees. Even sextant measurements will show this when the sun is directly overhead. If you understand the sun to be some 3,000 nm across, on the FE, get a couple of people to stand 3,000 miles apart, and use their supertransits to look exactly straight up. The transits will see the opposite edges of the sun. It's the way trig and math work. If your people can't detect the edges of the sun, it's because the sun is so far away that a supertransit isn't able to tell the difference, because it isn't sensitive/accurate enough for such distance. OR, the sun is so small (32 nm) that it isn't visible in the transits at all when the transits are 3,000 nm apart looking straight up. You can't have it both ways.




notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 28, 2019, 11:42:30 PM Last edit: June 29, 2019, 12:02:18 AM by notbatman 

^^^ Wow, nine paragraphs including the statement that #1, the Earth is flat, and you failed to include refraction much less diffraction: light is changing angles due to an interaction with translucent atmospheric material.
You've addressed that it can and is eliminated at 90, and we're in agreement that on this.
We need a second measurement and I believe we're also in agreement on this.
You want to use two either two observers at the same time, or less desirably one observer at different times and locations. As is said, no dice; prove the earth either curved or flat; are those proofs beyond a reasonable doubt, do they express themselves numerically?
Do you see the problem here?
edit:
Keep in mind there's a concave mirror above the refractive planes.
edit2:
Do you see the angle I'm trying to calculate? It's zero; bring the Sun down so it touches the ground then remove the refraction.




BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


June 29, 2019, 01:03:21 AM Last edit: June 29, 2019, 01:18:44 AM by BADecker 

^^^ Wow, nine paragraphs including the statement that #1, the Earth is flat, and you failed to include refraction much less diffraction: light is changing angles due to an interaction with translucent atmospheric material.
You've addressed that it can and is eliminated at 90, and we're in agreement that on this.
We need a second measurement and I believe we're also in agreement on this.
You want to use two either two observers at the same time, or less desirably one observer at different times and locations. As is said, no dice; prove the earth either curved or flat; are those proofs beyond a reasonable doubt, do they express themselves numerically?
Do you see the problem here?
edit:
Keep in mind there's a concave mirror above the refractive planes.
edit2:
Do you see the angle I'm trying to calculate? It's zero; bring the Sun down so it touches the ground then remove the refraction.
It seems that nine paragraphs isn't enough for you. Did you forget that YOU are the FE joker? All I'm doing is trying to make it easy for you to do simple math calc on your prospective FE. Refraction is irrelevant. The straw in the glass of water  it's like being in the water with the straw. If the earth were flat, everything I said would stand... because you could make the measurements several thousand miles apart. With FE there would be no curvature changing the 0 degrees relationship between the two people in the measurement to something that would be necessary on a globe just to make them able to focus at the edges of the sun. So, you are trying to sneakily combine GE and FE thinking. Concave mirror is just a distraction. The center of the mirror is directly overhead, while the edges are at the 32 nm that the guys are apart, 16 nm from the the point the center is directly over. Nothing you say has anything to do with measuring either the size of the sun, or its distance away. All your talk is a smokescreen, designed to hide the fact that you don't really know what you are talking about. I think you are simply playing a game. But if you are sincere, then you have a religion/cult going for yourself. If it is neither of these, you are going to have to introduce a new form of math, trig, calculus, physics, and a bunch of other things. If you have these, bring on your expert physicists/mathematicians, and let them explain in detail the theories about how everything works. As it is, you admit yourself that you are trying to do the math to prove your stuff. So you certainly aren't the joker who has a handle on your new physics.




notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032


June 29, 2019, 07:47:11 AM Last edit: June 29, 2019, 08:09:50 AM by notbatman 

^^^ I'm not combining two models, I'm attempting to make the assumption that Earth is either a globe or flat not a requirement for calculating the distance to the Sun; the entire calculation is based on angular resolution limits thus the globe is completely BTFO.
The only way refraction is irreverent is if you're only taking a single measurement at 90 degrees, the entire sky plane is the result of refraction and showing/proving this is more important than the results of the distance calculation; we're already on a plain at this point.
It's time to stop staring at the ceiling and pretending we're on merrygoround ride in a 10^17 torr vacuum, we're not orbiting a million mile wide thermonuclear bomb. The entire Copernican model is so ridiculous and unscientific it can be dismissed outofhand on face value alone.




Astargath


June 29, 2019, 07:57:38 AM 

... Show me the fucking money!
Look at it this way. Find a piece of flat land somewhere, say, Kansas. Now, you will have to prepare this ahead of time. Pick a spot where you know the sun will be directly overhead, say, at about noon. Since the sun travels in an eastwest direction, get somebody to stand 16 nm east of the spot where the sun will be directly overhead, and get another person to stand 16 nm directly west of the spot. Stand them so that if you draw a straight line between the two people, the line would pass through the spot where the sun is directly overhead, and this spot would be right in the middle of the line, kinda like this >>> ·+· . (The two dots are the people. The vertical line shows the center of the horizontal distance the people are apart. The intersect is where the sun is directly overhead.) If the two people look straight up, they should each be looking directly at opposite edges of the sun. But they aren't. Even transits or telescopes will show that they are still looking at the center of the sun. This means that the sun must be far wider than you suggest, or that there is some contradiction in you calculations somewhere. Because of the size of the earth, any atmospheric distortion would be too small to notice looking straight up. Perspective isn't included, because the guys are looking directly at the sun, even with the telescopes, not at some width where they need to focus perspectively. I've already considered this scenario, no dice. The Sun is ~32 miles wide and the observers need to be farther than that apart. At that distance+ the question of whether the earth is flat or curves at 8" per mile^2 becomes an issue, and the globalist will start injecting the refraction is bending the light around the globe argument. The globalist (with a small hat) will kick the can so far down the road posing one augment after another for why the Earth is actually bent, that he's able to muddy the water while wasting time and effort and completely shut it down. After much analysis I've come to realize that the plane where the Sun's light is refracted is well, a plain; a level layer of dense gas. This (the plane) and the linear refractive magnifying effect is why the one minute per nautical mile applies to celestial objects. The fact there's zero refraction at 90 degrees allows for the Sun's true diameter to be measured. ... Show me the fucking money!
Exactly, you are trying to prove it but havent done so how do you know if you havent proved it yet? Did you just beljeve it or what? You might want to check the last 773 pages, I'm fairly sure you'll find I've posted some valid reasons on why the Copernican model is a crock of shit. Even if it was true and you presented valid reasons against the copernical model, you still cant use that as evidence FOR the flat earth. Thats an argument from ignorance. You already admitted to be a liar.




