Topic: Flat Earth - page 61. (Read 1095196 times)

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.

^^^ 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?

 

^^^ 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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51636476 is wrong. Do it in a way that makes sense.

^^^ 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.

@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.

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.

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51636476. 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.

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.   

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.

... that has severe cataracts.     

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.

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.

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

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).

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51636476.

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.

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

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.

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

^ 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.

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.