Flat Earth

[Vod]

Let me guess.  A real photograph?

Does reality bother you?

Do you believe in hurricanes, joe?

[1715059397]

1715059397

[1715059397]

1715059397

[notbatman]

...
What is a horizon line exactly? And how do you calculate it to use it with the sextant?

The horizon line is a visual object that's observed not calculated; the image of a line is formed (emerges) due to optical convergence (and perspective) on a plane. The vanishing point is a point on the horizon line where, an object (or area) is no longer visible due to its visual (apparent) size being too small to resolve with the eye; all the points on the plane form a line.

The sextant is a simple tool like a ruler, it measures the angle between two objects using two mirrors and the eye. One of the two objects is almost always the horizon line, but it doesn't have to be. Once you've measured your angles then you can use them with your calculations; your action could be a simple as measuring the time of day with the Sun or a complex navigational calculation with the stars. You can also measure size and calculate distances (with trigonometry); one minute is equal to one mile.

[Vod]

The sextant is a simple tool like a ruler, it measures the angle between two objects using two mirrors and the eye.

Correct.  You cannot measure distance with it. 

 

[Astargath]

...
What is a horizon line exactly? And how do you calculate it to use it with the sextant?

The horizon line is a visual object that's observed not calculated; the image of a line is formed (emerges) due to optical convergence (and perspective) on a plane. The vanishing point is a point on the horizon line where, an object (or area) is no longer visible due to its visual (apparent) size being too small to resolve with the eye; all the points on the plane form a line.

The sextant is a simple tool like a ruler, it measures the angle between two objects using two mirrors and the eye. One of the two objects is almost always the horizon line, but it doesn't have to be. Once you've measured your angles then you can use them with your calculations; your action could be a simple as measuring the time of day with the Sun or a complex navigational calculation with the stars. You can also measure size and calculate distances with trigonometry; one minute is equal to one mile.

So you measure the sun to be ~ 30 arcmin, how do you now calculate the distance to the sun exactly?

[notbatman]

The sextant is a simple tool like a ruler, it measures the angle between two objects using two mirrors and the eye.

Correct.  You cannot measure distance with it.  

 

Wrong (you). Angular size is a measure of the distance an object physically spans (its diameter) and it's measured directly with two measurements, no trigonometry required.

[Astargath]

The sextant is a simple tool like a ruler, it measures the angle between two objects using two mirrors and the eye.

Correct.  You cannot measure distance with it.  

 

Wrong (you). Angular size is a measure of the distance an object physically spans (its diameter) and it's measured directly with two measurements, no trigonometry required.

Angular diameter is NOT the real diameter of the object.

[SaltySpitoon]

The sextant is a simple tool like a ruler, it measures the angle between two objects using two mirrors and the eye.

Correct.  You cannot measure distance with it.  

 

Wrong (you). Angular size is a measure of the distance an object physically spans (its diameter) and it's measured directly with two measurements, no trigonometry required.

You are using too many wrong assumptions to even need to discuss whether you are interpreting a reading from a sextant right. Optics do not work the way we all seem to agree they work if you make changes to the distance of celestial bodies from the earth, or change the base geometry that you are deriving optics laws from (which the sextant is basing its use on)

We can't discuss how to take a measurement of a sextant without first coming to an agreement on a lot of factors that we aren't going to. Your argument is using scientific tools that were designed based on physics, and then denying the physics that was used to construct them, and using that as your argument. Its the same as me saying that I'm measuring the horizon line with my chainsaw, and it works because my eye is actually a prism, and light is just electricity coming from a 40 watt bulb 15 fortnights away.

I'm sure there is going to be some angry incomprehensible babbling, but the point is that theres no way to have a discussion if you change a million variables at once and expect everyone to agree with you, by having them assume things that haven't been proven.

Express your opinion on the shape of the earth, the size of the sun, distance of the sun, speed of light, angles light coming from the sun, whether the light is polarized, whether its at all visible, etc. Then look at the assumptions that go into calculating distances using a sextant, and you'll find errors.

[BADecker]

Wrong (you). Angular size is a measure of the distance an object physically spans (its diameter) and it's measured directly with two measurements, no trigonometry required.

If you had any credibility whatsoever left, you wiped it out right here^^^.

[notbatman]

The sextant is a simple tool like a ruler, it measures the angle between two objects using two mirrors and the eye.

Correct.  You cannot measure distance with it.  

 

Wrong (you). Angular size is a measure of the distance an object physically spans (its diameter) and it's measured directly with two measurements, no trigonometry required.

Angular diameter is NOT the real diameter of the object.
^FTFY

It's a 1:1 ratio for minutes to miles, the mile is by definition 1 minute of arc; angular distance is in minutes and linear distance is in miles, the ratio is 1:1 for the human eye.

Angular size (diameter) is a scientific coverup (conspiracy), there is no bullshit argument that you can make like with curvature; it's a direct measurement and has to be covered up. The sextant proves the Earth is flat by virtue of measurement. Also the size of the Sun is measured at 32' not 30', this is off but it's no wonder since you have to calculate it on your globe illusion from an imaginary center that you're fucking hallucinating! Even Google says the Sun is 32' - why? -, because Google used a source that measured it instead of calculating it based on the worlds largest pile of bullshit!

Speaking of the devil, I hear the Google maps engineer has had all of his social media accounts suspended after stating openly the numbers NASA gives are bullshit.

[lightlord]

notbanman,

Why when you flush the toilet on the northern hemisphere the water spin clockwise, and on the southern hemisphere, counterclockwise? Unlike you, I have traveled and saw these effects.
100% can only occur on a globe earth, should be the same on either side of the earth if it was flat.

[SaltySpitoon]

Gee, I sure do hope the 1:1 ratio between arc minutes and nautical miles has nothing to do with the properties of a spherical earth.

Radius of Earth = 3959 Miles
Radius of Earth in Nautical Miles = 3959 Miles / 1.15078 Miles/Nautical Mile
Radius of Earth in Nautical Miles = 3440 Nautical Miles
Circumference of Earth in Nautical Miles = 2*Pi*3440 = 21603 Nautical Miles

1 degree is 1/360 degrees, 1 minute is 1/60th of 1 degree = 1/21600 degrees

So, we've established the radius of the earth is 3959 Miles, or Sextants stop working. Are we in agreement about that?

[notbatman]

notbanman,

Why when you flush the toilet on the northern hemisphere the water spin clockwise, and on the southern hemisphere, counterclockwise? Unlike you, I have traveled and saw these effects.
100% can only occur on a globe earth, should be the same on either side of the earth if it was flat.

https://i.imgur.com/SAn5j33.png

Short answer, it's the stars in motion.

Longer answer, if you analyze the fluid dynamics of the flush closely enough you can derive a 23 hour and 56 minute cycle; sidereal time. This force is from an aether drift related to the projection of celestial objects and can be measured with the M&M experiment. The difference in rotation between the so-called "hemispheres" results from the curvature of the mirrored dome inverting the projected image after a certain angle. The Earth's dome is electrically polarized at extreme voltage and the holograms interact with the aether flow; the aether flows as solenoidal lines of force and as the stars move they "stir" the bowl.

Smart answer, the Coriolis toilet flush is an urban myth. There is an however an aether drift responsible for a very small measurable value.

Gee, I sure do hope the 1:1 ratio between arc minutes and nautical miles has nothing to do with the properties of a spherical earth.

Radius of Earth = 3959 Miles
Radius of Earth in Nautical Miles = 3959 Miles / 1.15078 Miles/Nautical Mile
Radius of Earth in Nautical Miles = 3440 Nautical Miles
Circumference of Earth in Nautical Miles = 2*Pi*3440 = 21603 Nautical Miles

1 degree is 1/360 degrees, 1 minute is 1/60th of 1 degree = 1/21600 degrees

So, we've established the radius of the earth is 3959 Miles, or Sextants stop working. Are we in agreement about that?

When you calculate angular size based on a giant imaginary sphere and its calculated central point, you get shitty values compared with measuring them directly on a plane. Angular size is measured from the horizon vanishing point and is based on the human eye.



That's what your globe "eye" looks like, it's no wonder you're getting shitty values like 30' for your angular size of the Sun, it's measured at 32' and the Earth is flat my man.

[SaltySpitoon]

So 1 Nautical Mile does not equal 1 arc minute, and we can agree that sextants don't work right? Also, electricity doesn't work the way you think it do without gravity, so throw out any explanations using electric charges of anything other than planar sheets of charge.

Can you give me a practical experiment that I can do at home so that I can confirm the Aether for myself?

[notbatman]

...
Can you give me a practical experiment that I can do at home so that I can confirm the Aether for myself?
...

Airy's experiment that failed to detect the rotation of the Earth (Airy's Failure) is simple enough most people could perform it, his experiment only requires two telescopes (one filled with water to slow lights speed). It provides scientific evidence for a stationary Luminiferous aether and that the stars are in motion. Save any arguments that involve special relativity, it's a debunkable theory.

[Vod]

Airy's experiment that failed to detect the rotation of the Earth (Airy's Failure) is simple enough most people could perform it, his experiment only requires two telescopes (one filled with water to slow lights speed). It provides scientific evidence for a stationary Luminiferous aether and that the stars are in motion. Save any arguments that involve special relativity, it's a debunkable theory.

Reality is one of two choices:

1) You are lying.
2) Millions of people are lying.

 

[Astargath]

...
Can you give me a practical experiment that I can do at home so that I can confirm the Aether for myself?
...

Airy's experiment that failed to detect the rotation of the Earth (Airy's Failure) is simple enough most people could perform it, his experiment only requires two telescopes (one filled with water to slow lights speed). It provides scientific evidence for a stationary Luminiferous aether and that the stars are in motion. Save any arguments that involve special relativity, it's a debunkable theory.

ROFL Proving aether with just 2 telescopes in 1871? What a bunch of trash.

Pd: you always say that about the Cavendish experiment. Now I can say it about yours. Problem is that yours doesn't even prove what its supposed to.

[SaltySpitoon]

...
Can you give me a practical experiment that I can do at home so that I can confirm the Aether for myself?
...

Airy's experiment that failed to detect the rotation of the Earth (Airy's Failure) is simple enough most people could perform it, his experiment only requires two telescopes (one filled with water to slow lights speed). It provides scientific evidence for a stationary Luminiferous aether and that the stars are in motion. Save any arguments that involve special relativity, it's a debunkable theory.

Sorry, I've only got one telescope, so I can't replicate the experiment. Because I can't replicate it, I don't believe the results of the experiment.

Based on what I've read, it seems like the conclusions drawn are a reference frame error. If you see a ball flying by your head at 100 mph, you can either conclude that you are stationary, and its moving at 100 mph, you are moving at 50mph in the same direction, and the ball is moving at 150 mph, or the opposite, that its moving at 50 mph and you are also moving at 50mph towards it. It looks like the four pages of official documentation from the experiment don't realize the possibility that both the light and the earth are moving.

[Astargath]

I'm declaring Flat Earth theory officially debunked.

No one can explain to me why I can't tune into Russia over shortwave radio from here in Texas.

I should have no trouble doing this on a Flat Earth.

Pff, he would just deny it like everything else. He will say that shortwave radio signals aren't real and move on.

[suchmoon]

I'm declaring Flat Earth theory officially debunked.

No one can explain to me why I can't tune into Russia over shortwave radio from here in Texas.

I should have no trouble doing this on a Flat Earth.

Pff, he would just deny it like everything else. He will say that shortwave radio signals aren't real and move on.

Or radio signals disappear into vanishing point. Because railroad.

[sirazimuth]

... Sit back down my little bitch and keep believing what other men tell you.

dude... listen to salty..
Oh, and while you're (take note... thats "you're" not "your") at it, go take a physics class.
You might do well to listen to what other women/men  that are magnitudes more intelligent than you are tell you.

I'm declaring Flat Earth theory officially debunked.

No one can explain to me why I can't tune into Russia over shortwave radio from here in Texas.

I should have no trouble doing this on a Flat Earth.

Tune into Russia... flat earth thread...
Good lord....there's gotta be a Trump joke there somewhere.....