Circumnavigation?

  • 54 Replies
  • 8358 Views
?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2010, 01:13:22 PM »
Yea, the southern cross doesn't actually point at the South celestial pole. That's why I said look it up. Although it is used to find the point that the southern stars rotate around. Your Northern proof is invalid. Try again.
::) Gee, thanks for enlightening us with your infinite wisdom and authority. Go bake a cake.
So, you have no way of proving that the south pole isn't the centre and therefore decided to try to undermine me? Great, thanks. I'll remind myself of that next time I begin to care about replying to you while I know you're still wrong.
You didn't explain why my proposed proof is invalid. Instead, you chose to be stubborn. What you think you know is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant? You didn't prove anything at all. There is a northern and a southern celestial pole. Just because you can observe ONE of them, doesn't mean it's the only one.
How do you know there are two celestial poles?
Because I've seen both, idiot. From Japan, and New Zealand.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2010, 02:12:09 PM »
How do you know there are two celestial poles?

When it comes down to you questioning things like whether or not there really are two celestial poles (something that quite literally MILLIONS of people have witnessed) I think we should really chalk that up as a big fat fail for you, don't you agree?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2010, 02:14:01 PM »
Yea, the southern cross doesn't actually point at the South celestial pole. That's why I said look it up. Although it is used to find the point that the southern stars rotate around. Your Northern proof is invalid. Try again.
::) Gee, thanks for enlightening us with your infinite wisdom and authority. Go bake a cake.
So, you have no way of proving that the south pole isn't the centre and therefore decided to try to undermine me? Great, thanks. I'll remind myself of that next time I begin to care about replying to you while I know you're still wrong.
You didn't explain why my proposed proof is invalid. Instead, you chose to be stubborn. What you think you know is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant? You didn't prove anything at all. There is a northern and a southern celestial pole. Just because you can observe ONE of them, doesn't mean it's the only one.
How do you know there are two celestial poles?
Because I've seen both, idiot. From Japan, and New Zealand.
wow, what a great proof. I can claim that I have seen pink unicorns. Also, did you see both of them from a same point?

?

EarthISroundISproven

  • 382
  • There is no ice wall
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #33 on: March 29, 2010, 10:39:32 PM »
It's completely conventional. What we call North Pole is actually the center of the Earth.
can you prove it? You still don't have a working map.
Yes I can. The star called Polaris, when observed from points on the surface of the Earth, is immobile on the night sky, which seems to be rotating. The only points that do not rotate are the points lying on the axis of rotation. The point from where Polaris is observable to be in the zenith is customary called the North Pole. This point must lie on the intersection of the axis of rotation of the night sky and the surface of the Earth - the center of the Earth.
The same happens in the southern hemisphere. Look up southern cross navigation. The south pole must also be the centre of earth. That's weird, that must mean the earth is round, huh?

Ha ha touche!

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2010, 11:53:42 PM »
wow, what a great proof. I can claim that I have seen pink unicorns. Also, did you see both of them from a same point?
No. Last I checked, neither New Zealand, nor Japan are located on the equator. Your point? I've still seen both.

*

Misterkami

  • 190
  • Round Earth enthusiast
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2010, 08:36:27 AM »
Yea, the southern cross doesn't actually point at the South celestial pole. That's why I said look it up. Although it is used to find the point that the southern stars rotate around. Your Northern proof is invalid. Try again.
::) Gee, thanks for enlightening us with your infinite wisdom and authority. Go bake a cake.
So, you have no way of proving that the south pole isn't the centre and therefore decided to try to undermine me? Great, thanks. I'll remind myself of that next time I begin to care about replying to you while I know you're still wrong.
You didn't explain why my proposed proof is invalid. Instead, you chose to be stubborn. What you think you know is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant? You didn't prove anything at all. There is a northern and a southern celestial pole. Just because you can observe ONE of them, doesn't mean it's the only one.
How do you know there are two celestial poles?
Because I've seen both, idiot. From Japan, and New Zealand.
wow, what a great proof. I can claim that I have seen pink unicorns. Also, did you see both of them from a same point?
Ugh, that's annoying!
~No Ordinary Moments~

Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2010, 12:21:43 PM »
Small point about circumnavigation and about methods of direction finding.  The compass is not the only tool used to maintain a heading or course.  There have been widely used OTHER methods where magnetic information is not needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2010, 12:29:15 PM »
Small point about circumnavigation and about methods of direction finding.  The compass is not the only tool used to maintain a heading or course.  There have been widely used OTHER methods where magnetic information is not needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system
True. Also VOR, DME and NDB for aircraft which use nothing but radio signals.

Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2010, 12:35:08 PM »
Small point about circumnavigation and about methods of direction finding.  The compass is not the only tool used to maintain a heading or course.  There have been widely used OTHER methods where magnetic information is not needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system
True. Also VOR, DME and NDB for aircraft which use nothing but radio signals.
true...though DME does not provide course information ;)

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2010, 12:39:00 PM »
Small point about circumnavigation and about methods of direction finding.  The compass is not the only tool used to maintain a heading or course.  There have been widely used OTHER methods where magnetic information is not needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system
True. Also VOR, DME and NDB for aircraft which use nothing but radio signals.
true...though DME does not provide course information ;)
It can if you use two.

Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #40 on: March 31, 2010, 12:46:51 PM »
Small point about circumnavigation and about methods of direction finding.  The compass is not the only tool used to maintain a heading or course.  There have been widely used OTHER methods where magnetic information is not needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system
True. Also VOR, DME and NDB for aircraft which use nothing but radio signals.
true...though DME does not provide course information ;)
It can if you use two.  VERY VERY loosely.  you are thinking of some sort of triangulation which is going to require a known bearing.  All DME gives you is a distance from a station.  I could be 10 DME north or south or even above for that matter.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #41 on: March 31, 2010, 12:59:04 PM »
I'm not saying it's viable, I'm just saying it's plausible. VOR and NDB work anyway.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #42 on: March 31, 2010, 01:15:07 PM »
wow, what a great proof. I can claim that I have seen pink unicorns. Also, did you see both of them from a same point?


Are you dismissing that both Polaris and the Crux point to different celestial poles?

Are you saying that the billions of people that can see this are wrong?

Are you dumb?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #43 on: March 31, 2010, 01:20:22 PM »
Are you saying that the billions of people that can see this are wrong?
What billions?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #44 on: March 31, 2010, 01:24:30 PM »
Are you saying that the billions of people that can see this are wrong?
What billions?

The population of earth

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #45 on: March 31, 2010, 01:26:43 PM »
Are you saying that the billions of people that can see this are wrong?
What billions?

The population of earth
I can't see any Crux. Am I not an inhabitant of the Earth?

*

Misterkami

  • 190
  • Round Earth enthusiast
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #46 on: March 31, 2010, 01:31:47 PM »
Are you saying that the billions of people that can see this are wrong?
What billions?

The population of earth
I can't see any Crux. Am I not an inhabitant of the Earth?
if you can't see Polaris or the Crux then probably either you are blind or not an inhabitant, indeed.
PS: if you're blind you prolly are not writing on this forum and if you are not an inhabitant you are pretty much automatically disproving at least half of FET
~No Ordinary Moments~

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2010, 01:34:20 PM »
Are you saying that the billions of people that can see this are wrong?
What billions?

The population of earth
I can't see any Crux. Am I not an inhabitant of the Earth?
if you can't see Polaris or the Crux then probably either you are blind or not an inhabitant, indeed.
PS: if you're blind you prolly are not writing on this forum and if you are not an inhabitant you are pretty much automatically disproving at least half of FET
See my post. How does it relate to what you were replying?

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #48 on: March 31, 2010, 01:36:16 PM »
Are you saying that the billions of people that can see this are wrong?
What billions?

The population of earth
I can't see any Crux. Am I not an inhabitant of the Earth?

You see Polaris pointing to a celestial pole, so do the billions of people in the Northern hemisphere.

I see the Crux pointing to a different celestial pole, so do the billions of people in the Southern hemisphere.


Therefore: Billions of people see this.


There are no other celestial poles.


Again: You dumb?

*

Misterkami

  • 190
  • Round Earth enthusiast
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2010, 01:37:17 PM »
Are you saying that the billions of people that can see this are wrong?
What billions?

The population of earth
I can't see any Crux. Am I not an inhabitant of the Earth?
if you can't see Polaris or the Crux then probably either you are blind or not an inhabitant, indeed.
PS: if you're blind you prolly are not writing on this forum and if you are not an inhabitant you are pretty much automatically disproving at least half of FET
See my post. How does it relate to what you were replying?
It agrees with it
~No Ordinary Moments~

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2010, 01:39:29 PM »
Are you saying that the billions of people that can see this are wrong?
What billions?

The population of earth
I can't see any Crux. Am I not an inhabitant of the Earth?

You see Polaris pointing to a celestial pole, so do the billions of people in the Northern hemisphere.

I see the Crux pointing to a different celestial pole, so do the billions of people in the Southern hemisphere.


Therefore: Billions of people see this.


There are no other celestial poles.


Again: You dumb?
Again, how many billions live on the southern hemisphere?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2010, 01:43:18 PM »
Are you saying that the billions of people that can see this are wrong?
What billions?

The population of earth
I can't see any Crux. Am I not an inhabitant of the Earth?

You see Polaris pointing to a celestial pole, so do the billions of people in the Northern hemisphere.

I see the Crux pointing to a different celestial pole, so do the billions of people in the Southern hemisphere.


Therefore: Billions of people see this.


There are no other celestial poles.


Again: You dumb?
Again, how many billions live on the southern hemisphere?
Less than one. Does that make their observations any less valid?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2010, 01:43:56 PM »
Again, how many billions live on the southern hemisphere?
Less than one.
[/quote]
Lol.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #53 on: March 31, 2010, 01:45:54 PM »
The observation remains.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Circumnavigation?
« Reply #54 on: March 31, 2010, 01:46:14 PM »
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 01:47:50 PM by 2fst4u »