Sextants?

  • 134 Replies
  • 35118 Views
*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Sextants?
« on: February 25, 2010, 09:48:22 AM »
It's a larg misconception that Christopher Columbus was trying to prove the Earth was round.  To be accurate, at his time RET was already the widely accepted theory.  The evidence of this is the usage of sextants for nautical navigation.

Sextants work by measuring the altitude of a celestial object above the horizon, as well as the angle formed by the line of sight to the object from the viewer.  This information is then used in conjunction with a navigation chart to determine the position.

This process was done assuming RET, and I think it would be very difficult for it to work under FET. 

The sextant measures the altitude of the object relative to the horizon (not the sextant itself), and is often used to determine the altitude of the sun at noon, as this determines one's latitude.

Also, I don't believe the calculations would work as well as they have if the geography of the Earth differed as greatly from printed nautical maps and charts as FET says it does.

So how does FET explain working sextants?

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2010, 10:11:49 AM »
tl;dr

I figured this was going to be sexier.

I expect you'll get a "Have you ever used a sextant?" and "Who made the charts?" though.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2010, 11:42:50 AM »
Well, first of all I think it's worth pointing out that the mapping of the Earth in his day was hardly accurate, given that he didn't even realise he'd hit north America.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2010, 12:17:34 PM »
Well, first of all I think it's worth pointing out that the mapping of the Earth in his day was hardly accurate, given that he didn't even realise he'd hit north America.

I'd say that's a valid point, but sextants are still used in modern day sailing as backups (or if the captain has an affinity for that "old-fashioned" feel) and when they work, and as far as my research has found, they have been found to be incredibly reliable when used with modern round earth nautical maps.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2010, 12:32:33 PM »
as far as my research has found

What research was that?

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2010, 12:43:53 PM »
as far as my research has found

What research was that?

Mostly various websites describing the make and usage of sextants, both in old and modern times.

If you would so wish I could link you to a few of them later, but right now I have to head to class.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2010, 01:10:46 PM »
Mostly various websites describing the make and usage of sextants, both in old and modern times.

"I read about it on the internet" doesn't sound like convincing research to me.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2010, 02:27:30 PM »
Mostly various websites describing the make and usage of sextants, both in old and modern times.

"I read about it on the internet" doesn't sound like convincing research to me.

It's better than "I'm going to post this wiki page as evidence even though I wrote it"

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2010, 02:40:20 PM »
Mostly various websites describing the make and usage of sextants, both in old and modern times.

"I read about it on the internet" doesn't sound like convincing research to me.

If you would like to suggest a better source of information on the make and usage of sextants, please do so.

If you are attempting (poorly, I might at add, as flyingmonkey pointed out that you often cite less credible sources) to make my research appear unreliable and the use that to deny the existence of sextants, or their use in modern times, please stop being childish and make a proper counter-argument.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43180
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2010, 02:44:18 PM »
Mostly various websites describing the make and usage of sextants, both in old and modern times.

"I read about it on the internet" doesn't sound like convincing research to me.

Neither does "I looked out my window and the earth looks flat."
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2010, 03:12:46 PM »
I have used a Nocturnal, which is like a primitive sextant. It worked.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2010, 04:46:13 PM »
I have used a Nocturnal, which is like a primitive sextant. It worked.

Therefore, it can be said that sextants designed with a round earth in mind, used in conjunction with modern maps also based off of a round earth can be used to obtain accurate results.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2010, 10:15:51 AM »
The lack of response indicates FET has no explanation for this.

RET is proved via sextants.

If any FE'ers wish to disprove this, please do so.

?

Drdevice

  • 227
  • Deus of Machina
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2010, 10:33:11 AM »
Well, first of all I think it's worth pointing out that the mapping of the Earth in his day was hardly accurate, given that he didn't even realize he'd hit north America.

Well the man was crazy and thought that the world was pair shaped because he wanted there to be a quick way to India. When he got to America he threatened any one on his crew to say that they didn't find India.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2010, 12:15:46 PM »
It's a larg misconception that Christopher Columbus was trying to prove the Earth was round.  To be accurate, at his time RET was already the widely accepted theory.  The evidence of this is the usage of sextants for nautical navigation.

Sextants work by measuring the altitude of a celestial object above the horizon, as well as the angle formed by the line of sight to the object from the viewer.  This information is then used in conjunction with a navigation chart to determine the position.

This process was done assuming RET, and I think it would be very difficult for it to work under FET. 

The sextant measures the altitude of the object relative to the horizon (not the sextant itself), and is often used to determine the altitude of the sun at noon, as this determines one's latitude.

Also, I don't believe the calculations would work as well as they have if the geography of the Earth differed as greatly from printed nautical maps and charts as FET says it does.

So how does FET explain working sextants?

It would be the same observations in either model. The sextant is dependent on the apparent location of celestially objects in the sky, it makes no assumptions on the actual positions of the objects in calculating your location.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43180
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2010, 01:10:09 PM »
Well, first of all I think it's worth pointing out that the mapping of the Earth in his day was hardly accurate, given that he didn't even realize he'd hit north America.

Columbus pretty much just said that the earth was about 8000 miles smaller than the accepted value (which was actually pretty close to today's value) so that he could con the queen into thinking that it would be shorter to go west than around Africa.  Turns out that it was just one more thing that he was wrong about.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2010, 02:27:04 PM »
"I read about it on the internet" doesn't sound like convincing research to me.

Please read and take in the information provided in the following posts:

It's better than "I'm going to post this wiki page as evidence even though I wrote it"

And:

Neither does "I looked out my window and the earth looks flat."

Once you take notice of these examples and follow suit, your ideas and opinions will be taken into account and respected by all. Until then, you have no place telling people what is and what isn't evidence/research.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2010, 02:28:22 PM »
Until then, you have no place telling people what is and what isn't evidence/research.

I didn't say it wasn't research. I said that reading about it on the internet wasn't very convincing research.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 02:30:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2010, 02:30:32 PM »
Until then, you have no place telling people what is and what isn't evidence/research.

I didn't say it wasn't research. I said that reading about it on the internet wasn't very convincing research.
Welcome to the digital age tom. I've found numerous college textbooks on cultural history and other subjects online.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2010, 02:31:59 PM »
Welcome to the digital age tom. I've found numerous college textbooks on cultural history and other subjects online.

Reading a passage in a book isn't convincing research, either.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2010, 02:37:44 PM »
Welcome to the digital age tom. I've found numerous college textbooks on cultural history and other subjects online.

Reading a passage in a book isn't convincing research, either.
Reading chapters on Buddhism in multiple textbooks, that I've found the complete text of online, sounds like research to me.

What would YOU call research, tom?
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2010, 03:13:47 PM »
Welcome to the digital age tom. I've found numerous college textbooks on cultural history and other subjects online.

Reading a passage in a book isn't convincing research, either.
Reading chapters on Buddhism in multiple textbooks, that I've found the complete text of online, sounds like research to me.

What would YOU call research, tom?

Tom's research is almost purely observation, with limited to no scientific experimentation.  In other words, Tom looks at the world around him and tries to explain how that world is flat by theorizing about how things might work (note: this is not strictly Tom's style of research, but that of FE'ers in general.)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2010, 03:44:26 PM »
Quote
Reading chapters on Buddhism in multiple textbooks, that I've found the complete text of online, sounds like research to me.

Reading passages in multiple books isn't convincing research.

For example, there are many science textbooks which state that butterflies emerge from cocoons. Many teachers also teach their students that butterflies emerge from cocoons.

Quote
What would YOU call research, tom?

Peer review.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 03:48:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43180
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2010, 03:48:20 PM »
Quote
What would YOU call research, tom?

Peer review.

Peer review is not research.  Peer review is verifying someone else's research.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2010, 03:49:35 PM »
Quote
What would YOU call research, tom?

Peer review.

Peer review is not research.  Peer review is verifying someone else's research.

Peer review is considered research.

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2010, 03:53:48 PM »
Peer review is considered research.

Quote
Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, and used in most important scientific publications, peer review has been criticized as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood (see anonymous peer review and open peer review).

Peer review is not research.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2010, 03:59:39 PM »
Quote
Reading chapters on Buddhism in multiple textbooks, that I've found the complete text of online, sounds like research to me.

Reading passages in multiple books isn't convincing research.

For example, there are many science textbooks which state that butterflies emerge from cocoons. Many teachers also teach their students that butterflies emerge from cocoons.

Quote
What would YOU call research, tom?

Peer review.

By the same token, EnaG is not convincing research/proof.

And, no peer review is not research, in that it does not provide new information but refines old information.

I also don't see how the cocoon argument plays into anything.  It's almost as bad at the Qunatum Field Theory argument you often espouse.

The main problem with your Wunatum Field Theory, is that you assume that A. it is considered "the theory" and that b. very little of it has been verified.

I'm rather sure both assumptions of those are wrong, and you have never cited any valid sources to support either of those claims, rendering the QFT argument ineffective.

This cocoon argument follows the same path, but is far more non-sensical.  Butterflies have been observed to emerge from cocoons (I myself saw this happen in person) for as long as they have existed, yet you talk as if this i untrue (without providing any proof for your claim) and fail to provide a valid counter-theory.

So you have yet to provide any conclusive argument that dispells books as a form of research.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2010, 08:33:09 PM »
Quote
Peer review is not research.

Research of another person's research is research. I don't see any reason why it isn't.

Quote
This cocoon argument follows the same path, but is far more non-sensical.  Butterflies have been observed to emerge from cocoons

Actually... they haven't.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 08:50:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Drdevice

  • 227
  • Deus of Machina
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2010, 08:41:40 PM »
He's made that argument before and he is right. They emerge from a chrysalis. It's all a matter of wording. He just likes toting it around because it’s such a common mistake but people still know what you mean either way.

It's like I could say that "doggy style" is a misnomer. Dogs do not in fact have sex that way. They penetrate then face opposite directions as the males penis engorges causing the two to become stuck together. This is to prevent any seamen from being lost.

The humping that is observed is one dog asserting authority over another.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 08:49:20 PM by Drdevice »

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Sextants?
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2010, 08:50:24 PM »
He's made that argument before and he is right. They emerge from a chrysalis. It's all a matter of wording. He just likes toting it around because it’s such a common mistake but people still know what you mean either way.

It's like I could say that "doggy style" is a misnomer. Dogs do not in fact have sex that way. They penetrate then face opposite directions as the males penis engorges causing the two to become stuck together. This is to prevent any seamen from being lost.
They also continue to release semen and little swimmy guys during this. The bitch's vulva and vaginal tract will contract and pull the semen further into the body. When doing artificial insemination, you have to stimulate the vulva to make the bitch have these muscular contractions.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"