Flat Earth

[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://asktom.cf/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.

[BADecker]

^^^ Exactly the point!

You could say what you said. But you also could say just exactly the opposite of what you said.

You could talk about Eratosthene one way, but you also could talk about him in an exactly opposite way. Or, you could even be talking about a different Eratosthene than anyone else thinks you mean.

Why? Because all the proof you use, doesn't match what standard science says would happen if someone tried to prove your way. Not only that, but all your talk and proof doesn't answer any of my proof which uses standard science, and simple common sense understanding.

What is wrong with your science? Nobody can tell, because you might have a full panoply of science proofs and theorems that describe all of nature in a different, even better, way. And there would be nothing wrong with that...

... if you didn't combine the two sciences (standard and yours) all the time, and if you could/would explain your whole science so that people could see why it works. You simply don't have even enough to make sense with what you, yourself, say.

Personally, as I have said in the past, you have a religious cult going for yourself, or you are testing people to see what they will do with your silliness, or you are just plain daffy.

Wanna prove you're not goofy? Simply, scientifically answer why the stuff I show here https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=1009045.msg51636476#msg51636476 is wrong. Do it in a way that makes sense.

[notbatman]

^^^ Drooling idiot much?

There are two circular lights and a multitude smaller points of light in sky above us, no heavy balls. Circular lights don't equate to heavy balls and neither do points of light.

Your logic (actually trash you read written by a man with a small hat) is fucking retarded, even if the lights in sky were in fact heavy balls (they are not), it's like claiming a pool table or basketball court is spherical because the balls are.

Do you understand how fucking stupid, how summer child you are for regurgitating this nonsense argument? Do you?

 

[Astargath]

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.

He assumed the sun was far away, thats why he used only 2 holes, however as shown many times, you can do it with 3 distant holes, measure the angles of the shadows and no FE model can account for the angles, even with a close sun.

[notbatman]

^^^ Once refraction is accounted for it's the globe that's up shit creek without a paddle my summer child.

[notbatman]

^^^

It's because all the evidence for a globe fails horrifically under modest criticism.

[notbatman]

^^^

Death and taxes are a sure thing, the globe is load of horseshit.

[Astargath]

^^^ Once refraction is accounted for it's the globe that's up shit creek without a paddle my summer child.

And yet you admitted to not know for sure even when "refraction" is accounted for. You said it yourself, you are still trying to calculate it fully, why have you stopped posting the calc, cuz you could not do it.

[notbatman]

^^^ Once refraction is accounted for it's the globe that's up shit creek without a paddle my summer child.

And yet you admitted to not know for sure even when "refraction" is accounted for. You said it yourself, you are still trying to calculate it fully, why have you stopped posting the calc, cuz you could not do it.

No I'm not still calculating it. It's linear in nature (because the atmosphere is a plane) with a maximum at 0 degrees and a minimum (no refraction) at 90 degrees.

I explained the whole calculation already, I simply needed to show that 1 minute = 1 nautical mile and I did that by calculating the distance to the horizon and Sun's un-refracted size at 0 degrees. Pop the solar radius and the angle from one side into the right-angle trig calc and Bob's your uncle; 3440 nautical miles.

All that's missing is a compiled diagram detailing all the steps.

[BADecker]

^^^ On a flat earth, the atmosphere is essentially at the same thickness throughout the FE. This means that no matter where you stand on the FE, if you look straight up, there is essentially no refraction aberration.

1. If the sun is something like 3000 miles wide, and;
2. The sun is directly over head for some guy who is looking straight up at its center, and;
3. There are two guys, one 1500 miles to the center guy's exact left, and the other 1500 miles to his exact right, and;
4. These guys are looking straight up as well;
5. Their straight-up lines of sight will be parallel to each other, and;
6. The middle guy will be looking at the center of the sun;
7. While the other two guys will be looking at opposite edges of the sun.

There is no other way no matter how far the sun is away. All that will happen if the sun is far away is that you won't be able to tell with the naked eye at which part of the sun you are looking. But if you use perfect telescopes with each of these guys, the middle guy will always be seeing the exact center of the sun. The other two guys will always be seeing opposite edges of the sun.

That's the only way math and trig will work on a FE as it is described in this thread by FE people, and especially by notbatman.

Way back in the thread, the FE people showed us that the top center of the supposed dome is about 18,000 miles above the earth, roughly over the North Pole. This means that for them the sun is less than 18,000 miles away from the part of the earth it is directly over. The dome is opaque steel, so the sun can't be on the other side of it.

At less than 18,000 miles, the two guys should be able to see their edges of the sun with reasonably small, backyard telescopes that are pointed straight up. Since this is never the case, there is a big flaw in the thinking of FE people. No matter the size of the telescope, when it is pointed straight up at the sun, the sun's center is always seen by all 3 guys, when the center of the sun is directly above the middle guy.

Let's see the clear working math, and the scientific theories in detail, that FE people use to show that the standard calc I provide in this post is wrong. Anybody can say just about anything. But the calc above proves that FE people are wrong in the FE thins they say.

[exemplaar]

Do you really believe in flat earth? Is that the same as believing in nothing?

Look around you, knucklehead. Evidence is stockpiling everywhere you travel.

Maybe you do need some travel tips...duh.



Distance proofs make the FlatEarth irrefutable. Mt. Hood and Mt. St. Helens are 189 miles apart, but can both be seen here. That's 9,000 feet of missing curvature.

bonus:

[BADecker]

Do you really believe in flat earth? Is that the same as believing in nothing?

Look around you, knucklehead. Evidence is stockpiling everywhere you travel.

Maybe you do need some travel tips...duh.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D80FMyYV4AAYFQi.jpg

Distance proofs make the FlatEarth irrefutable. Mt. Hood and Mt. St. Helens are 189 miles apart, but can both be seen here. That's 9,000 feet of missing curvature.

bonus:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6foBCfUwAAFf02.jpg

Mwahahahahahaha. Using mountains to prove the earth is flat! Mwahahahahahaha.

[Spendulus]

....

I explained the whole calculation already, I simply needed to show that 1 minute = 1 nautical mile ...

It's a well known rule of thumb that at 60 miles, one degree equals 1 mile, hence at 3600 miles, one minute equals one mile. Not exactly, but close.

[lh-crypto.biz]

Is a round-the-world trip okay?

[notbatman]

Is a round-the-world trip okay?

Yup.










"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" -- Isaiah 40:22, KJV