Flat Earth

[notbatman]

^^^ 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.

[1715029663]

1715029663

[1715029663]

1715029663

[1715029663]

1715029663

[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?

[BADecker]

^^^ 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]

@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 non-standard 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]

^^^ 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.

[notbatman]

@BADecker, the back of the napkin trigonometric illustration I made look like a game of hangman, or perhaps somebody being crucified.

I'm going with a known distance of 3 minutes based on the angular resolution limit of 1 minute with an elevation above the plain of 3/50 seconds and two measured angles.



edit:

So here's what the problem looks like after MS paint:

[exemplaar]

Also in Italy they see too far and supposed curvature of a spinning ball earth is nowhere to be found. Earth is flat and stationary, covered by a dome-firmament of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scgrpmQa0J8

Reality:

[odolvlobo]

That's a great diagram. Here is where my confusion comes from: First, replacing the pole with the sun gives you X + Z = 0.533 degrees or 32 nm. But if you make the same measurements with the pole (and you are close enough to it), you will get an angle more than 0.533 degrees and the pole certainly isn't more than 32 nm tall.

Another way to look at it is this: suppose the sun is setting directly behind the pole and the top of the sun lines up with the top of the pole while the bottom of the sun is exactly at the horizon. Now, since part of the pole is below the horizon, its angular size is bigger than the sun, but the pole isn't more than 32 nm tall.

So, 1 minute can't always be 1 nm. (X+Z) depends on the distance K, assuming P is constant, or P depends on K, assuming (X+Z) is constant. That's what it looks like to me.

Do you understand my confusion now?

[BADecker]

Also in Italy they see too far and supposed curvature of a spinning ball earth is nowhere to be found. Earth is flat and stationary, covered by a dome-firmament of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scgrpmQa0J8

Reality:

https://scontent.flju2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/65034172_10156309873766770_4765110896009674752_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent.flju2-2.fna&oh=ea706e21ad4f2ef28976913873347090&oe=5D835981

You remember the bottomless pit in Revelation, don't you? Revelation 9:2 (KJV):

And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

So, on a flat earth, how deep is the bottomless pit? And if the dragon was cast into the bottomless pit, how far did he fall? Does density explain how the attraction/repulsion that is normally called "gravity" works in an endless, bottomless pit?

In a globe earth, the bottomless pit would go down through the center of the earth. Why? Because at the center of the earth, globe-gravity would be attracting everything equally in every direction. This makes a pit, but there doesn't have to be any bottom. By the time you reach the center of the earth, you stop falling, because you have become weightless. You never splat on the bottom.

In fact, the attraction of gravity as you get closer to the center of the earth does funny things. For example, if you went 1 mile in any direction away from the center, there would be a slight gravitational effect. But it would still be less than it would be on a small asteroid... almost unnoticeable. What this means is that other earthly forces may have made the earth hollow, because of the small amount of gravitational effect at the center. The highest pressure effect on a hollow earth would be somewhere in between the center and the surface.

The earth is hollow, and people are finding it out. That's why the powers that be are using you jokers to promote a flat earth theory. The powers are using the center of the earth for military experimentation. And their leader is the devil, who was cast into the bottomless pit.

[notbatman]

I created this to show how to measure the angular size of objects. If you see any errors let me know.

edit:
version 2.1
corrected calculation for A

[odolvlobo]

I created this to show how to measure the angular size of objects. If you see any errors let me know.

The angles that you have marked as 90° are not 90°. As a result, the calculations for P, E, and C are not correct.

[notbatman]

I created this to show how to measure the angular size of objects. If you see any errors let me know.

https://i.imgur.com/15e5eZH.jpg

The angles that you have marked as 90° are not 90°. As a result, the calculations for P, E, and C are not correct.

P, E and C are not calculated from the diagram markings, they are calculated using measured and known values thus they are correct.

The marked angles can't be drawn at 90° due to optical convergence, hence the 90° angle notation to indicate their actual values. The reason for this is that parallel lines optically converge to a point at the horizon (see photograph with angle marked in red) but, physically parallel lines never converge. The 90° angle can be confirmed empirically by observing that the horizon line is at eye level.




I found this, it's made out of cardboard.

   How To Build A Homemade Sextant -- https://youtu.be/hOLjEj8OxJM

[Tony Zero]

Everyone sees the world in one’s own way..

[BADecker]

I created this to show how to measure the angular size of objects. If you see any errors let me know.

https://i.imgur.com/zS0G3hs.jpg

The angles that you have marked as 90° are not 90°. As a result, the calculations for P, E, and C are not correct.

P, E and C are not calculated from the diagram markings, they are calculated using measured and known values thus they are correct.

The marked angles can't be drawn at 90° due to optical convergence, hence the 90° angle notation to indicate their actual values. The reason for this is that parallel lines optically converge to a point at the horizon (see photograph with angle marked in red) but, physically parallel lines never converge. The 90° angle can be confirmed empirically by observing that the horizon line is at eye level.

... except where it goes over the horizon.     

[odolvlobo]

I created this to show how to measure the angular size of objects. If you see any errors let me know.

https://i.imgur.com/zS0G3hs.jpg

The angles that you have marked as 90° are not 90°. As a result, the calculations for P, E, and C are not correct.

P, E and C are not calculated from the diagram markings, they are calculated using measured and known values thus they are correct.

The marked angles can't be drawn at 90° due to optical convergence, hence the 90° angle notation to indicate their actual values. The reason for this is that parallel lines optically converge to a point at the horizon (see photograph with angle marked in red) but, physically parallel lines never converge. The 90° angle can be confirmed empirically by observing that the horizon line is at eye level.

I see. The issue then is that you have drawn the line to the horizon incorrectly because it is parallel to the ground and should never intersect it. If it is parallel, then the angles are 90° and P, E, and C are correct.

Next, why do you divide A by 90 when computing O? I don't understand that equation.

[notbatman]

I created this to show how to measure the angular size of objects. If you see any errors let me know.

https://i.imgur.com/15e5eZH.jpg

The angles that you have marked as 90° are not 90°. As a result, the calculations for P, E, and C are not correct.

P, E and C are not calculated from the diagram markings, they are calculated using measured and known values thus they are correct.

The marked angles can't be drawn at 90° due to optical convergence, hence the 90° angle notation to indicate their actual values. The reason for this is that parallel lines optically converge to a point at the horizon (see photograph with angle marked in red) but, physically parallel lines never converge. The 90° angle can be confirmed empirically by observing that the horizon line is at eye level.

I see. The issue then is that you have drawn the line to the horizon incorrectly because it is parallel to the ground and should never intersect it. If it is parallel, then the angles are 90° and P, E, and C are correct.

Next, why do you divide A by 90 when computing O? I don't understand that equation.

The distance to the horizon A is divided into 90° because there are 90° between the observer and the horizon vanishing point at 0°.

[odolvlobo]

I see. The issue then is that you have drawn the line to the horizon incorrectly because it is parallel to the ground and should never intersect it. If it is parallel, then the angles are 90° and P, E, and C are correct.
Next, why do you divide A by 90 when computing O? I don't understand that equation.

The distance to the horizon A is divided into 90° because there are 90° between the observer and the horizon vanishing point at 0°.

90°? Where does that come from?

[notbatman]

I see. The issue then is that you have drawn the line to the horizon incorrectly because it is parallel to the ground and should never intersect it. If it is parallel, then the angles are 90° and P, E, and C are correct.
Next, why do you divide A by 90 when computing O? I don't understand that equation.

The distance to the horizon A is divided into 90° because there are 90° between the observer and the horizon vanishing point at 0°.

90°? Where does that come from?

[BADecker]

@notbatman

You can end most of the disagreement and misunderstanding by simply showing us the math/trig that allows us to find the distance and size using only the angle. If you do this, 90% of all the rest of the talk will disappear.

Just spit it out right here. You know, like 1+1=2. Or whatever it is. And if you use unconventional math, show us why your math stands over standard math.

[notbatman]

@notbatman

You can end most of the disagreement and misunderstanding by simply showing us the math/trig that allows us to find the distance and size using only the angle. If you do this, 90% of all the rest of the talk will disappear.

Just spit it out right here. You know, like 1+1=2. Or whatever it is. And if you use unconventional math, show us why your math stands over standard math.

   The angular resolution limit of the human eye determines how far the human eye can see (source: Ophthalmology 3rd Edition, ISBN 978-0444511416). Tell us why you think the angular resolution limit of the human eye isn't a factor in determining the distance the human eye can see?

Why are you asking me to provide a formula for calculating the distance to an object without including the angular resolution limit of the eye? If you don't include the angular resolution limit of the eye in your calculation, then the distance to an object can not be calculated.

If there's an error in my formulas for calculating size and distance then show us!