Flat Earth

[BADecker]

There are so many things that show that the earth is not flat, that the FE model has been proven to be rubbish thousands of times. Here's another.

The Soviet Superplane That Rattled America

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hv2dsVkA38

[1714952378]

1714952378

[notbatman]

I believe the Earth is flat because it is flat,
I believe the Earth does not move because it does not move,
I believe the Sun is in motion because it is in motion and,
I believe the lights in sky are lights in the sky because they are lights in the sky.

The man in the small hat says he can weigh the red light in sky with heavy balls in a garden shed.

Well at least the man in the small hat DID an experiment, you on the other hand admitted to just believe what others tell you and we are still waiting for your final calculations. Where are they? Did you realize they were totally wrong hahaha what a fucking liar.

What have I lied about? You're taking the fact I lack a complete understanding of some technical detail as evidence that I'm being dishonest. You're a fucking asshole.

I'm analyzing how the atmospheric plane works as I'm gauging the Sun's distance at the point of maximum refractive magnification. I'm doing this because the Sun needs an object to be measured against; the horizon vanishing line. The horizon is at 90 degrees to the observers eye level thus it is the standard used to measure (with a sextant) the Sun is the measured (with a tape measure) height of the observer and the resolution limit (1 minute) of the eye.

Now without being able to explain and prove how the refractive magnification caused by the atmospheric plane works I can't account for it (i.e. remove it mathematically) while calculating its size from the measured value. This is where I'm currently at in my "calculation".

[BADecker]

I believe the Earth is flat because it is flat,
I believe the Earth does not move because it does not move,
I believe the Sun is in motion because it is in motion and,
I believe the lights in sky are lights in the sky because they are lights in the sky.

The man in the small hat says he can weigh the red light in sky with heavy balls in a garden shed.

Well at least the man in the small hat DID an experiment, you on the other hand admitted to just believe what others tell you and we are still waiting for your final calculations. Where are they? Did you realize they were totally wrong hahaha what a fucking liar.

What have I lied about? You're taking the fact I lack a complete understanding of some technical detail as evidence that I'm being dishonest. You're a fucking asshole.

I'm analyzing how the atmospheric plane works as I'm gauging the Sun's distance at the point of maximum refractive magnification. I'm doing this because the Sun needs an object to be measured against; the horizon vanishing line. The horizon is at 90 degrees to the observers eye level thus it is the standard used to measure (with a sextant) the Sun is the measured (with a tape measure) height of the observer and the resolution limit (1 minute) of the eye.

Now without being able to explain and prove how the refractive magnification caused by the atmospheric plane works I can't account for it (i.e. remove it mathematically) while calculating its size from the measured value. This is where I'm currently at in my "calculation".

https://i.imgur.com/zN3zBjL.jpg

But I showed you where you are missing it at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg51636476#msg51636476. In fact, using the FE idea with what I showed you in the link, was something you couldn't answer with any known science, even FE science.

You might not be lying when you say that you believe the earth is flat, but if you believe, you are starting to doubt. Personally, I think you are intentionally attempting something far different with your FE thread, like testing to see how many lay people you can dupe.

Most of modern humanity doesn't believe the earth is a globe. They know it's a globe. So, when you say that you believe the earth is flat, you show that you are treating the subject as a religion, not as a scientifically determined fact.

[Astargath]

I believe the Earth is flat because it is flat,
I believe the Earth does not move because it does not move,
I believe the Sun is in motion because it is in motion and,
I believe the lights in sky are lights in the sky because they are lights in the sky.

The man in the small hat says he can weigh the red light in sky with heavy balls in a garden shed.

Well at least the man in the small hat DID an experiment, you on the other hand admitted to just believe what others tell you and we are still waiting for your final calculations. Where are they? Did you realize they were totally wrong hahaha what a fucking liar.

What have I lied about? You're taking the fact I lack a complete understanding of some technical detail as evidence that I'm being dishonest. You're a fucking asshole.

I'm analyzing how the atmospheric plane works as I'm gauging the Sun's distance at the point of maximum refractive magnification. I'm doing this because the Sun needs an object to be measured against; the horizon vanishing line. The horizon is at 90 degrees to the observers eye level thus it is the standard used to measure (with a sextant) the Sun is the measured (with a tape measure) height of the observer and the resolution limit (1 minute) of the eye.

Now without being able to explain and prove how the refractive magnification caused by the atmospheric plane works I can't account for it (i.e. remove it mathematically) while calculating its size from the measured value. This is where I'm currently at in my "calculation".

Events:

An idiot (you) sees somr FE threads and youtube videos and starts believing them

The idiot then creates a thread about it claiming he knows for sure the earth is flat and that we are all idiots because we simply believe things.

The idiot is then confronted about the math involved and admits he actually doesnt know jackshit

Where is the lie? Claiming to know the distance to the sun without ever calculating it before.

Conclusion: notbatman is a liar.

[notbatman]

^ I believe that the distance to the Sun can be calculated from measured and known values, that doesn't make me a liar. Me trying to prove that it can be calculated isn't proof I'm a liar. What kind of sick bastard are you?

BADecker, he's a different kind of sick bastard. He want to force an assumption of either flat or ball before the calculation starts. I'll make no such assumption.





The Sun's un-refracted size (refraction removed) at sunset or sunrise when the Sun is at 50% visible (zero degrees) is 1 minute (resolution limit of 1 foot @ 1/2 nautical miles). The Sun's refracted height at sunset or sunrise when the Sun is at 50% visible is 16 minuets. The Sun's un-refracted diameter at 90 degrees is 32 minuets.

If our eye height above the plain is 1 foot then the horizon is 1 nautical mile away given a resolution limit of 1 minute. Given the ratio of 1 minute per nautical mile the Sun measures 32 nautical miles across when not affected by refraction.

So we know the Sun's radius is 16 nautical miles so it's distance according to the trigonometry calculator should be ~3440 nautical miles.

This is where I'm currently at.

[odolvlobo]

The Sun's un-refracted size (refraction removed) at sunset or sunrise when the Sun is at 50% visible (zero degrees) is 1 minute (resolution limit of 1 foot @ 1/2 nautical miles). The Sun's refracted height at sunset or sunrise when the Sun is at 50% visible is 16 minuets. The Sun's un-refracted diameter at 90 degrees is 32 minuets.

If our eye height above the plain is 1 foot then the horizon is 1 nautical mile away given a resolution limit of 1 minute. Given the ratio of 1 minute per nautical mile the Sun measures 32 nautical miles across when not affected by refraction.

So we know the Sun's radius is 16 nautical miles so it's distance according to the trigonometry calculator should be ~3440 nautical miles.

This is where I'm currently at.

Excellent. This FE video is relevant, but he doesn't seem to know how the air magnifies an object based on its distance and angle above the horizon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYaqoB7BR-4

[XCASH]

I believe the Earth is flat because it is flat,
I believe the Earth does not move because it does not move,
I believe the Sun is in motion because it is in motion and,
I believe the lights in sky are lights in the sky because they are lights in the sky.

The man in the small hat says he can weigh the red light in sky with heavy balls in a garden shed.

Well at least the man in the small hat DID an experiment, you on the other hand admitted to just believe what others tell you and we are still waiting for your final calculations. Where are they? Did you realize they were totally wrong hahaha what a fucking liar.

What have I lied about? You're taking the fact I lack a complete understanding of some technical detail as evidence that I'm being dishonest. You're a fucking asshole.

I'm analyzing how the atmospheric plane works as I'm gauging the Sun's distance at the point of maximum refractive magnification. I'm doing this because the Sun needs an object to be measured against; the horizon vanishing line. The horizon is at 90 degrees to the observers eye level thus it is the standard used to measure (with a sextant) the Sun is the measured (with a tape measure) height of the observer and the resolution limit (1 minute) of the eye.

Now without being able to explain and prove how the refractive magnification caused by the atmospheric plane works I can't account for it (i.e. remove it mathematically) while calculating its size from the measured value. This is where I'm currently at in my "calculation".

Events:

An idiot (you) sees somr FE threads and youtube videos and starts believing them

The idiot then creates a thread about it claiming he knows for sure the earth is flat and that we are all idiots because we simply believe things.

The idiot is then confronted about the math involved and admits he actually doesnt know jackshit

Where is the lie? Claiming to know the distance to the sun without ever calculating it before.

Conclusion: notbatman is a liar.

He's a popular liar though. This is one of the most popular threads on the forum, It's funny AF reading all the ad hominem attacks here.

[Astargath]

^ I believe that the distance to the Sun can be calculated from measured and known values, that doesn't make me a liar. Me trying to prove that it can be calculated isn't proof I'm a liar. What kind of sick bastard are you?

BADecker, he's a different kind of sick bastard. He want to force an assumption of either flat or ball before the calculation starts. I'll make no such assumption.





The Sun's un-refracted size (refraction removed) at sunset or sunrise when the Sun is at 50% visible (zero degrees) is 1 minute (resolution limit of 1 foot @ 1/2 nautical miles). The Sun's refracted height at sunset or sunrise when the Sun is at 50% visible is 16 minuets. The Sun's un-refracted diameter at 90 degrees is 32 minuets.

If our eye height above the plain is 1 foot then the horizon is 1 nautical mile away given a resolution limit of 1 minute. Given the ratio of 1 minute per nautical mile the Sun measures 32 nautical miles across when not affected by refraction.

So we know the Sun's radius is 16 nautical miles so it's distance according to the trigonometry calculator should be ~3440 nautical miles.

This is where I'm currently at.

Stop twisting the words. Its not you trying to calculate it what makes you a liar, its you CLAIMING to know that the distance to the sun is 3000 miles because, again, you just admitted to not know it. You also just said you "believe" but you call us out because we believe scientists. Somehow you think believing randoms on youtube is better than well known scientists

[BADecker]

^ I believe that the distance to the Sun can be calculated from measured and known values, that doesn't make me a liar. Me trying to prove that it can be calculated isn't proof I'm a liar. What kind of sick bastard are you?

BADecker, he's a different kind of sick bastard. He want to force an assumption of either flat or ball before the calculation starts. I'll make no such assumption.

What makes you a liar is claiming that you know, and then saying that you believe, and not reconciling the two. (Of course, we all lie like this at times. But if we are honest, we try to make it right.)

Seems to me that BADecker isn't making assumptions of flat or globe. Rather, he is assuming flat so that you can make calculations based on the FE you believe. Then he shows you calculations you can't refute. Not calculations of flat or globe, but calculations that show that your baloney calc is rotten baloney - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg51636476#msg51636476.

But you know the excellent thing you can do, right? ANYTIME you can show calc that makes sense that disproves BADecker's calc. ANYTIME! Why don't you start now? Come on. You have kept us all in suspense for these 700+ pages. Now show us the calc that actually works.

[notbatman]

I've arrived at ~3440 without making any assumptions or claims. All values are known (eye resolution limit) or measured (angle of sun & height of observer).

[BADecker]

I've arrived at ~3440 without making any assumptions or claims. All values are known (eye resolution limit) or measured (angle of sun & height of observer).

All that shows is that you were looking cross-eyed while you were staring at the sun.

[notbatman]

Measurement of the angle is performed with a single eye.

If your sextant is made from cardboard and string I recommend viewing the Moon, the destructive force wrought on the Copernican model is equally as devastating.

[Astargath]

I've arrived at ~3440 without making any assumptions or claims. All values are known (eye resolution limit) or measured (angle of sun & height of observer).

But you just said a few posts ago, that you are still trying to calculate it and had some errors. Show us the full calc if you claim you have arrived at 3440 or shut up, liar.

[BADecker]

Measurement of the angle is performed with a single eye...

... that has severe cataracts.     

[notbatman]

You've got the full calculation, I just needed to show that 1 minute = 1 nautical mile and I did that by measuring the Sun at sunset/sunrise and calculating the Sun's un-refracted size and the distance from the observer to the horizon based on the resolution limit of the eye (1 minute) and eye height (1 foot).

The distance to the Sun calculation is just standard trig for a right angle triangle with the known solar radius and viewed angle. Confirmation is made by measuring the Sun again at 90 degrees and confirming the Sun's actual un-refracted diameter.

Can you see what I did there?



edit:

Let me try and break this down. At a distance of 1/2 nautical miles a 1 foot diameter object has an apparent angular size of 1 minute. Beyond that 1/2 a nautical mile all 1 foot objects are not visible, the eye can't and doesn't register them because they are beyond its physical limits to do so.

If we raise our eye's angle of attack by 1 foot, that 1 foot object can now been seen at a distance of 1 nautical mile as the greater viewing angle increased the apparent angular size of the object.

As objects get smaller and smaller off into the distance they converge to a point at eye level and form a vanishing line i.e. the horizon. For the human eye this point is everything beyond 1 minute in size.

[Chaotic_4]

lol this topic is still discussed? hha

Eratosthenes calculated the earth's circumference 2300 years ago and we are still discussing this while we are building decentralized currencies, something is wrong here.   

[BADecker]

You've got the full calculation, I just needed to show that 1 minute = 1 nautical mile and I did that by measuring the Sun at sunset/sunrise and calculating the Sun's un-refracted size and the distance from the observer to the horizon based on the resolution limit of the eye (1 minute) and eye height (1 foot).

The distance to the Sun calculation is just standard trig for a right angle triangle with the known solar radius and viewed angle. Confirmation is made by measuring the Sun again at 90 degrees and confirming the Sun's actual un-refracted diameter.

Can you see what I did there?



edit:

Let me try and break this down. At a distance of 1/2 nautical miles a 1 foot diameter object has an apparent angular size of 1 minute. Beyond that 1/2 a nautical mile all 1 foot objects are not visible, the eye can't and doesn't register them because they are beyond its physical limits to do so.

If we raise our eye's angle of attack by 1 foot, that 1 foot object can now been seen at a distance of 1 nautical mile as the greater viewing angle increased the apparent angular size of the object.

As objects get smaller and smaller off into the distance they converge to a point at eye level and form a vanishing line i.e. the horizon. For the human eye this point is everything beyond 1 minute in size.

Except that none of that has to do with anything... much less determining the shape of the earth.

Why don't you explain what is wrong with my calc here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg51636476#msg51636476. My calc is the easy, standard way of calculating straight up. On a flat earth, because nobody is looking at a slant, there is no atmospheric aberration that affects anything.

What my calc does is to show that at the separation of the guys looking straight up, they are still looking exactly at the center of the sun. This means that the sun is so extremely wide, that 32 nm isn't even noticed regarding the center of the sun.

[notbatman]

lol this topic is still discussed? hha

Eratosthenes calculated the earth's circumference 2300 years ago and we are still discussing this while we are building decentralized currencies, something is wrong here.   

Eratosthenes assumed Earth was a globe and based his calculation on that assumption, this is called "begging the question". A small close Sun above a flat earth produces the same results.

You should research you facts before proving that you're a fool.



@BADecker, the Copernican model is done, you're done.

[BADecker]

lol this topic is still discussed? hha

Eratosthenes calculated the earth's circumference 2300 years ago and we are still discussing this while we are building decentralized currencies, something is wrong here.  

Eratosthenes assumed Earth was a globe and based his calculation on that assumption, this is called "begging the question". A small close Sun above a flat earth produces the same results.

You should research you facts before proving that you're a fool.



@BADecker, the Copernican model is done, you're done.

@notbatman, the FE model has been done for a long time. But you will continue to prove yourself ignorant.

Eratosthenes calculated Earth was a globe and based his knowledge on that calculation, this is called "answering the question". A small close Sun above a flat earth never produces the same results... as a GE, or as a FE under even slightly different circumstances.

You should research your facts before proving that you're ignorant. But that's only my opinion. Maybe you SHOULD continue to prove you are ignorant.

[notbatman]

^^^ You've got nothing but intellectually dishonesty in your responses, everything you say is an attempt to distract from or lead people away from the facts and the truth.

Eratosthene proved absolutely nothing, he didn't didn't measure a globe he measured shadows cast by a close small Sun. If you think Eratosthene proved anything then you're (provably) a fucking idiot.