BADecker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
 |
February 02, 2019, 09:00:12 PM |
|
If you use a sextant or a transit to triangulate with the sun and several different stars at a particular time of the year, and then triangulate with the same stars and the sun 90 days later, and then triangulate the triangulations, together, the distance of the sun from the earth can be ascertained to be about 90 million miles. You can use the calc to find the rough diameter of the sun to be +/- 800,000 miles.  Your margin of error is about ~89,999,666 miles if you factor refraction (WARNING: DO NOT USE REFRACTION TABLES FROM NASA!) into the equation. You're also assuming the Earth is a sphere, the fact you made an assumption limits the validity of your evidence; petitio principii, or at least a variant thereof. Try measuring the Sun's size directly with the sextant (32 minutes in diameter) and you'll get much more accurate results. Okay. Thanks. Didn't realize you didn't want to use anything regarding sight, or photo-sensitivity for determining the shape of the earth. How does triangulation suggest that the earth is a sphere? (Note that we are using photo-sensitivity assumptions again.) Simply using the same time of day for making geometric trig measurements doesn't need a sphere in any of it. All we are doing is determining the distance to the sun, and then the diameter of the sun off that distance. For example - and I forget your figures, etc. - if the sun is 3000 miles in diameter, and is directly overhead for you, and is well within the 18,000 miles to the top of the dome from earth... somebody who is thousands of miles away from you should see a smaller sun. But he doesn't. The sun is always the same size to everybody no matter where he looks at it from. This suggests that the sun is much larger and more distant that you seem to think. The idea that refraction makes it look bigger than it is from further away, doesn't have its base in science or simple observation. In fact, it's the opposite. Since we can't use photo-sensitivity - sight or telescopes, or probably radar since it has to do with the electromagnetic spectrum - why would you think that the earth is flat, and that the sun is only less than 18,000 miles away? If your error is in the range of 90 million miles factoring in refraction, why would you think it is any better at close range? Math and many science experiments show that the refractive index is not any 90 million miles off. If it were, Sagnac, Michelson Morley, and Airy wouldn't have any bearing on anything, one way or another. Yet you quote these guys and refer to them all the time. Or is it that you think that they were wrong this way but not that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trust scores you see are subjective; they will change depending on who you have in your trust list. |
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
notbatman (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
February 02, 2019, 09:26:08 PM
Last edit: February 02, 2019, 10:06:09 PM by notbatman |
|
^^^ When I stated 1 mile = 1 minute and that the Sun is 32 minutes in diameter, how exactly did you get 3,000 miles? bump+++ ...  So much for their claims, looks like the Sun does shrink when atmospheric conditions are right. ... bump+++ You assume the stars are flat due to claiming they're gazillions of miles away (with an apparent size of less than the plank length AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!) this implies the curvature that can be derived from the measurements you're making is due to the Earth curving (re: Aristotle). I'm fairly sure I can also derive curvature (the framework for applying it at least) from whatever equations you're using and show you're making an assumption purely on a mathematical basis. |
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
February 03, 2019, 01:09:10 AM |
|
^^^ When I stated 1 mile = 1 minute and that the Sun is 32 minutes in diameter, how exactly did you get 3,000 miles? You are ignoring the point. The point is that the sun appears smaller from further away, not larger or the same. But the amount is far less than it would be if the dome were only the approximately 18,000 miles high at the center that you seem to think. bump+++ bump+++ You assume the stars are flat due to claiming they're gazillions of miles away (with an apparent size of less than the plank length AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!) this implies the curvature that can be derived from the measurements you're making is due to the Earth curving (re: Aristotle). I'm fairly sure I can also derive curvature (the framework for applying it at least) from whatever equations you're using and show you're making an assumption purely on a mathematical basis. Actually, so much for your claim. If you get atmospheric conditions just right, you can't see the sun at all... like at night. As far as flat stars go, have you been out there to visit one of them lately? Why do you think that I have? Star measurements are made from the center of the star, even if you can't lock in on it. If measuring off stars is assumptions, Sagnac, Michelson Morley, and Airy are assumptions, and flat earth fails because you have been placing your trust in them, even though you are backwards. |
|
|
|
daarul50
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1034
|
|
February 03, 2019, 04:16:34 PM |
|
There will be no end to us arguing about whether the earth is round or flat because someone has their own opinions and thoughts. We should not debate things like this, because problems like this are only one solution, namely mutual respect for the opinions of other people.
|
|
|
|
|
notbatman (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
February 03, 2019, 04:26:12 PM
Last edit: February 03, 2019, 04:51:01 PM by notbatman |
|
There will be no end to us arguing about whether the earth is round or flat because someone has their own opinions and thoughts. We should not debate things like this, because problems like this are only one solution, namely mutual respect for the opinions of other people.
The reading taken from a caliper for example is not a matter of opinion, so fuck off with your bullshit.
"... You are ignoring the point. The point is that the sun appears smaller from further away, not larger or the same. But the amount is far less than it would be if the dome were only the approximately 18,000 3,000 [FTFY] miles high at the center that you seem to think. ..."
No I'm not ignoring the point, I clearly defined the difference between apparent visual size and angular size in post #14537. "... Actually, so much for your claim. If you get atmospheric conditions just right, you can't see the sun at all... like at night. ..."
Day and night are not the result of atmospheric conditions. "... Star measurements are made from the center of the star, even if you can't lock in on it. If measuring off stars is assumptions, Sagnac, Michelson Morley, and Airy are assumptions, and flat earth fails because you have been placing your trust in them, even though you are backwards. ..."
1. You're completely ignoring refraction, the optical displacement caused is far too great by many orders of magnitude to be corrected by any minor adjustments. 2. None of the established experiments you listed made any assumptions and two of them don't even involve star light. |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
February 03, 2019, 04:49:06 PM |
|
There will be no end to us arguing about whether the earth is round or flat because someone has their own opinions and thoughts. We should not debate things like this, because problems like this are only one solution, namely mutual respect for the opinions of other people.
The reading taken from a caliper for example is not a matter of opinion, so fuck off with your bullshit.
"... You are ignoring the point. The point is that the sun appears smaller from further away, not larger or the same. But the amount is far less than it would be if the dome were only the approximately 18,000 3,000 [FTFY] miles high at the center that you seem to think. ..."
No I'm not ignoring the point, I clearly defined the difference between apparent visual size and angular size in post #14537. "... Actually, so much for your claim. If you get atmospheric conditions just right, you can't see the sun at all... like at night. ..."
Day and night are not the result of atmospheric conditions. Established science for hundreds of years is not an opinion, some idiots that feel unimportant and think they figured out a massive conspiracy might think that scientific evidence is a hoax but they themselves believe in things without doing them themselves, you for instance have done no experiments, sextant or any of the others you mention and yet you believe them to be true but when it comes to the experiments proving the earth is not flat you don't believe them, your brain doesn't work properly. Still waiting for that video of the dome, I wonder when we will have enough technology to do that... |
|
|
|
notbatman (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
February 03, 2019, 04:52:28 PM |
|
^^^ Not an argument to anything you quoted there.
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
February 04, 2019, 12:24:53 AM |
|
"... You are ignoring the point. The point is that the sun appears smaller from further away, not larger or the same. But the amount is far less than it would be if the dome were only the approximately 18,000 3,000 [FTFY] miles high at the center that you seem to think. ..."
No I'm not ignoring the point, I clearly defined the difference between apparent visual size and angular size in post #14537. You entirely misuse angular size by neglecting angular shape. If angular size were applied as you said, angular shape would be that of a cat's eye slit. "... Actually, so much for your claim. If you get atmospheric conditions just right, you can't see the sun at all... like at night. ..."
Day and night are not the result of atmospheric conditions. But being able to see the sun often is. So, if you are going to make a claim, claim the whole thing. Not just part of your claim. Otherwise nobody will know what you are talking about, and they will try to explain what you said in different ways than you meant. "... Star measurements are made from the center of the star, even if you can't lock in on it. If measuring off stars is assumptions, Sagnac, Michelson Morley, and Airy are assumptions, and flat earth fails because you have been placing your trust in them, even though you are backwards. ..."
1. You're completely ignoring refraction, the optical displacement caused is far too great by many orders of magnitude to be corrected by any minor adjustments. 2. None of the established experiments you listed made any assumptions and two of them don't even involve star light. All I am using is refraction. FE perspective involves using refraction in non-standard ways. So, to answer anything you say, I have to assume FE angular refraction in everything. You can't simply jump backward and forward, into an out of, standard perspective and FE perspective and make any sense. Use one or the other. Sagnac, Michelson Morley, and Airy automatically based all their experiments on their understanding of far distant star systems. They don't have to talk about it in their experiments to apply it automatically, right along with all the things of their experiments. Separating their experiments from the base of the star system knowledge they held, is like jumping back and forth between standard science and your understanding of FE science. You are inventing a whole new skewed way of doing math, where "equal" only equals "equal" when you say it does, but not when you say it doesn't. The universe only works like that in the funny farm. Just ask your next door resident, Napoleon. |
|
|
|
lightlord
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3226
Merit: 1226
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
|
|
February 04, 2019, 12:56:10 AM |
|
Notbatman, take the time to appreciate the beauty of the world we live on and move on from all the nonsense https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2wtte1JRE |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
February 04, 2019, 09:02:57 AM |
|
AAAAAAAAAAAH IT'S FAKE, ALL OF IT !!!!111 YOU ARE JUST A PAID SHILL, I CAN TELL IT'S ALL FAKE THANKS TO MY 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN VIDEO EDITING AND PHOTOGRAPHY, I'M ALSO AN EXPERT IN PHYSICS, SCIENCE, ASTRONOMY AND EVERYTHING THANKS TO MY YOUTUBE VIDEOS. |
|
|
|
notbatman (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
February 04, 2019, 11:46:33 AM
Last edit: February 04, 2019, 12:14:26 PM by notbatman |
|
Move on, you mean like go out and enjoy all the money I made mining Bitcoin back in 2014?
AAAAAAAAAAAH IT'S FAKE, ALL OF IT !!!!111 YOU ARE JUST A PAID SHILL, I CAN TELL IT'S ALL FAKE THANKS TO MY 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN VIDEO EDITING AND PHOTOGRAPHY, I'M ALSO AN EXPERT IN PHYSICS, SCIENCE, ASTRONOMY AND EVERYTHING THANKS TO MY YOUTUBE VIDEOS. Awesome, I learned how to forge an katana sword and a roman temple starting with nothing but a sharped stick. https://streamable.com/s/l89dc/tgqyqb |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
February 04, 2019, 05:39:54 PM |
|
Move on, you mean like go out and enjoy all the money I made mining Bitcoin back in 2014?
AAAAAAAAAAAH IT'S FAKE, ALL OF IT !!!!111 YOU ARE JUST A PAID SHILL, I CAN TELL IT'S ALL FAKE THANKS TO MY 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN VIDEO EDITING AND PHOTOGRAPHY, I'M ALSO AN EXPERT IN PHYSICS, SCIENCE, ASTRONOMY AND EVERYTHING THANKS TO MY YOUTUBE VIDEOS. Awesome, I learned how to forge an katana sword and a roman temple starting with nothing but a sharped stick. https://streamable.com/s/l89dc/tgqyqbpretty weird that we would find pieces of the dome when the dome was created by God, wasnt it? |
|
|
|
sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3360
Merit: 3499
born once atheist
|
|
February 04, 2019, 06:12:48 PM |
|
You're wasting your time giving batty that advice even though it's totally valid. He'll be preaching his flat earth fatuity foolishness in this thread till its either locked (ain't happening) or he dies or maybe he even takes his own advice and ropes himself. So the thread will be approaching a thousand pages of this claptrap in a few months time I'd venture to guess... |
Bitcoin...the future of all monetary transactions...and always will be
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
February 04, 2019, 06:51:05 PM Merited by sirazimuth (1) |
|
You're wasting your time giving batty that advice even though it's totally valid. He'll be preaching his flat earth fatuity foolishness in this thread till its either locked (ain't happening) or he dies or maybe he even takes his own advice and ropes himself. So the thread will be approaching a thousand pages of this claptrap in a few months time I'd venture to guess... Shut up atheist, you are going to hell. |
|
|
|
Agarthian
Member
Offline
Activity: 250
Merit: 10
|
|
February 04, 2019, 07:43:49 PM |
|
my home country dont exist in a ball  |
|
|
|
|
sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3360
Merit: 3499
born once atheist
|
|
February 04, 2019, 08:40:03 PM |
|
Shut up atheist, you are going to hell.
I suppose if xempy had posted that, there would definitely be no merit involved, and I woulda most likely just threw shade at the fool....  |
Bitcoin...the future of all monetary transactions...and always will be
|
|
|
notbatman (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
February 05, 2019, 05:11:27 AM |
|
Creating images of fake ball Earth is #2 on the list of things that pisses off God (10 commandments).
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
February 05, 2019, 05:49:47 AM |
|
Creating images of fake ball Earth is #2 on the list of things that pisses off God (10 commandments).
But not as much as liars who say the earth is flat, especially since there is nothing anywhere that can be shown to be flat: Revelation 22:15: For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. |
|
|
|
|
xxkaiwaxx
|
|
February 05, 2019, 06:10:34 AM |
|
Wow Flat Earth really is taking off!  . Never thought it would be such a prominent topic on bitcointalk forum. But i agree. The earth is not what Main Stream claim it to be. The evidence, or lack thereof, is overwhelming to say the least. Why do people fight so hard to protect a lie? Does it not excite you of the possibility that reality is a lot more that what youve been programmed to believe? Or has your ego been bloated to such an extent over the years that to realize and admit that youve been deceived for this long would cause a mental meltdown of catastrophic proportions? ^^" |
|
|
|
|
notbatman (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
February 05, 2019, 07:21:32 AM |
|
Creating images of fake ball Earth is #2 on the list of things that pisses off God (10 commandments).
But not as much as liars who say the earth is flat, especially since there is nothing anywhere that can be shown to be flat: Revelation 22:15: For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. -- Revelation 20:7-10, ESVYour theological arguments are as full of shit as your pseudoscientific lies. The Earth is a stationary plain. |
|
|
|
|
|
