Flat Earth - page 178. | Bitcointalksearch.org

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Vod on November 05, 2018, 02:18:43 AM

Quote from: notbatman on November 04, 2018, 08:40:59 PM

He's using stellar parallax to measure the distance to Venus then triangulating but, atmospheric distortions render this method completely useless as even the smallest distortions are bigger than the measurement he's claiming to make. So to avoid having you debunk his method he's making claims while omitting details of the method used. The sextant may be somewhat inaccurate for measuring the distance to the Sun but the margin of error sure as hell isn't 93,000,000 miles.

Funny we don't have atmospheric distortions today, and can measure the distance to the moon, sun and many other planets and stars.

We can measure the distance to the next house, skyscraper and mountain in the same way. All wil incredible precision.

Flat Earth is impossible. Meaning... NOT POSSIBLE. Cool

Who knows for sure, but it was probably atmospheric distortions that got the whole FE thing started in the first place... I mean in this modern day and age. But anybody can go outside on a clear night and watch the stars twinkle. How much are they displaced by their distortion twinkle? Perhaps a tiny fraction of a degree... not enough to create all the distortion and reverse distortion needed to show a FE. Bu, a person has dreams... even FE people do.

Cool

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: notbatman on November 04, 2018, 08:40:59 PM

He's using stellar parallax to measure the distance to Venus then triangulating but, atmospheric distortions render this method completely useless as even the smallest distortions are bigger than the measurement he's claiming to make. So to avoid having you debunk his method he's making claims while omitting details of the method used. The sextant may be somewhat inaccurate for measuring the distance to the Sun but the margin of error sure as hell isn't 93,000,000 miles.

Funny we don't have atmospheric distortions today, and can measure the distance to the moon, sun and many other planets and stars.

We can measure the distance to the next house, skyscraper and mountain in the same way. All wil incredible precision.

Flat Earth is impossible. Meaning... NOT POSSIBLE. Cool

joerogers8

full member

Activity: 420

Merit: 105

Negative trust for an opinion! Check it out.

Quote from: notbatman on November 04, 2018, 08:40:59 PM

Quote from: joerogers8 on November 04, 2018, 05:10:38 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 04, 2018, 04:51:04 PM

Quote from: joerogers8 on November 04, 2018, 04:38:03 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 04, 2018, 04:25:08 PM

Quote from: notbatman on November 03, 2018, 07:19:40 PM

Quote from: Vod on November 03, 2018, 03:59:18 PM

Quote from: notbatman on November 03, 2018, 03:34:01 PM

How many times have I explained the Moon is an object holographically projected off of a concave mirrored dome? Your memory is so short it's almost non-existent, the keyword here is "mirror".

How many times have I explained we know the moon orbits a sphere earth at 240,000 miles? Is your memory that short? The keyword is "gravity".

How many experiments do I have to suggest to you before you get curious enough to investigate yourself?

Next you will claim the moon is made of green cheese, because you read that somewhere.

Cool

Can you guess the distance to the Moon when you bust out the sextant and measure it? Gravity is an unproven theory like the big bang, outer space, heliocentrism, the globe, dinosaurs, evolution and historical time-frames greater than 10,000 years.

As the number of experiments you suggest approaches infinity, the possibility of a globe approaches zero. Also you seem to conflate researching documented information and facts with stories written by hacks, quacks and crackpot scientists. You keep repeating these same stories that are beamed into your head via TV, can't you understand everything on TV is fake news and the government is in on it? Can you tell me the official 911 narrative resembles anything that looks like a fact? Do you think that corporations put fluoride and roundup in your beer because it helps increase your testosterone level?

Oh come on! Everybody knows that a sextant is for finding approximate relative distances between the heavenly bodies. A sextant is way too inaccurate for determining the size of heavenly objects. Why don't you come out of the ancient past by at least stepping up to modern transits and telescopes?

Cool

You measured the suns size and distance with transits and a telescope? Explain your set up, how you took your measurements and how you derived your conclusions.

See if you can top your explanation of how a liquid can stick to the exterior of a shape. For all who missed it water on the interior of a glass is proof of water sticking to the exterior of a shape (according to Badecker) because the liquid in the glass is on the exterior of the interior of the glass.

Set it up on land in the same format as a sextant would be set up, and you get much more accurate readings.

Cool

LOL Avoiding that one. Not even a classic ridiculous response? I'm disappointed.

Tell us exactly what you did to get your measurement of the sun 93,000,000 miles away. Did you make any assumptions? Come on tell us how you did it. Let us in on the secrets. Can't wait to hear how you used the transits. What type of telescope did you use?

He's using stellar parallax to measure the distance to Venus then triangulating but, atmospheric distortions render this method completely useless as even the smallest distortions are bigger than the measurement he's claiming to make. So to avoid having you debunk his method he's making claims while omitting details of the method used. The sextant may be somewhat inaccurate for measuring the distance to the Sun but the margin of error sure as hell isn't 93,000,000 miles.

Astargath did this to me with Eratosthenes experiment, he kept claiming adding a 3rd well debunked flat earth but when I asked how and why he wouldn't answer. It turns out the experiment was taking the effects caused by refraction and claiming it was proof of curvature. The whole argument rested on the numbers NASA provides (we have to trust they are correct) for refraction.

I always love having them try to explain themselves here in the forum so others can see how full of shit they are. It's obvious all of their data comes from the stories they were told and cannot be independently verified or none of us would need to be here. Their refusal to simply admit this makes for some classic posts and great fun at times. Badeckers response on the exterior of the interior was so classic I was hoping with a more complex subject he would really swing for the fences!

notbatman

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1038