Sextants?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 03, 2010, 01:09:07 PM

He never misses an opportunity to put me down.

You flatter yourself.

See? I'm right.

Quote from: Sir Mildred Pierce on March 02, 2010, 07:36:29 PM

We're going to use a value based on the curvature of the Earth to, in the long run, disprove the curvature of the Earth?

How cool would that be? 

BTW why is the bendy light debate still going on when my angular distance of stars post adequately crushes it out of existence? Wilmore didn't even comment on it, which is a sure sign that he can't counter it. He never misses an opportunity to put me down.

Can you post a link to that thread, I would be interested in checking it out.

I outline it in this thread a couple of pages back, but here's the link to the main discussion of it:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35823.40

The thread contains some very good examples of flat guys pretending not to understand the concept because it's absolutely uncounterable.

I outline it in this thread a couple of pages back, but here's the link to the main discussion of it:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35823.40

The thread contains some very good examples of flat guys pretending not to understand the concept because it's absolutely uncounterable.

Uncounterable isn't a word.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 04, 2010, 10:05:51 AM

I outline it in this thread a couple of pages back, but here's the link to the main discussion of it:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35823.40

The thread contains some very good examples of flat guys pretending not to understand the concept because it's absolutely uncounterable.

Uncounterable isn't a word.

Supah and Lovah aren't words.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 04, 2010, 10:05:51 AM

I outline it in this thread a couple of pages back, but here's the link to the main discussion of it:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35823.40

The thread contains some very good examples of flat guys pretending not to understand the concept because it's absolutely uncounterable.

Uncounterable isn't a word.

Then why did I know what it meant?

You RE folks accept, I guess, Einsteinian physics, despite Newtonian physics being used for day to day things, like artillery and falling out of a window.

So it should come as no surprise that a sextant can be thought of as a round earth with stars and junk, but in reality involves bendy light and a flat earth to keep right angles together and gravity in line.

A closed mind will never find the bendy quark.

You RE folks accept, I guess, Einsteinian physics, despite Newtonian physics being used for day to day things, like artillery and falling out of a window.

So it should come as no surprise that a sextant can be thought of as a round earth with stars and junk, but in reality involves bendy light and a flat earth to keep right angles together and gravity in line.

A closed mind will never find the bendy quark.

I'm going to say this in every topic you've posted in today:

You haven't proved anything. All you have done is say "The earth is flat, so your remarks and theories are obviously wrong, idiot-head". You are clearly not a good debater at all.

You RE folks accept, I guess, Einsteinian physics, despite Newtonian physics being used for day to day things, like artillery and falling out of a window.

So it should come as no surprise that a sextant can be thought of as a round earth with stars and junk, but in reality involves bendy light and a flat earth to keep right angles together and gravity in line.

A closed mind will never find the bendy quark.

Well thanks for reminding me that your Flatheads don't actually understand Einsteinian physics or what a quark is.  You know you don't understand it, that's why you use it to justify your whacked out theories because you are hoping no one else will understand it! 

I'm going to say this in every topic you've posted in today:

You haven't proved anything. All you have done is say "The earth is flat, so your remarks and theories are obviously wrong, idiot-head". You are clearly not a good debater at all.

I don't think you are an idiot.  And my debating skills seem off topic, but I'll work on them.  I actually really like your avatar, such enthusiasm.

Well thanks for reminding me that your Flatheads don't actually understand Einsteinian physics or what a quark is.  You know you don't understand it, that's why you use it to justify your whacked out theories because you are hoping no one else will understand it! 

I do know what a quark is.  I'm holding one right now! 

Quote from: SupahLovah on March 04, 2010, 10:20:17 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 04, 2010, 10:05:51 AM

I outline it in this thread a couple of pages back, but here's the link to the main discussion of it:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35823.40

The thread contains some very good examples of flat guys pretending not to understand the concept because it's absolutely uncounterable.

Uncounterable isn't a word.

Supah and Lovah aren't words.

Names and nicknames aren't always real words, are they?

Quote from: Sir Mildred Pierce on March 05, 2010, 04:59:05 AM

Well thanks for reminding me that your Flatheads don't actually understand Einsteinian physics or what a quark is.  You know you don't understand it, that's why you use it to justify your whacked out theories because you are hoping no one else will understand it! 

I do know what a quark is.  I'm holding one right now! 

Quarks are sub-atomic particles.  You're not holding them, you are them.

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Quote from: Catchpa on March 08, 2010, 10:23:43 AM

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

I thought the problem was about the maps, getting from A to B.

Quote from: Catchpa on March 08, 2010, 10:23:43 AM

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

Quote from: Raist on March 08, 2010, 10:47:36 AM

Quote from: Catchpa on March 08, 2010, 10:23:43 AM

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

Proof? I've watched the sunset many times and if "bendy light" would make it appear to set exactly as it would on a RE, where's the problem?

Quote from: Raist on March 08, 2010, 10:47:36 AM

Quote from: Catchpa on March 08, 2010, 10:23:43 AM

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

So you agree that both suns look like they are in the same place? You do realize that the sextant only records where the sun appears to be, not where it is.

I'd also like to hear how geometry is different in FE theory and RE theory. Especially the rather simply geometry used by a sextant.

Quote from: Sir Mildred Pierce on March 08, 2010, 11:01:38 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 08, 2010, 10:47:36 AM

Quote from: Catchpa on March 08, 2010, 10:23:43 AM

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

Proof? I've watched the sunset many times and if "bendy light" would make it appear to set exactly as it would on a RE, where's the problem?

The problem is is that Bendy Light is a fiction made up out of whole cloth to plug a huge gaping hole in Fantasy Earth theory.  If you don't have a problem believing in fiction, that's cool, more power to you.  But if you expect anyone else to buy in to that absurdity, you better back it up with some good evidence.  For some reason the path most Flatheads have taken is to not present any evidence at all.

Quote from: Sir Mildred Pierce on March 08, 2010, 11:01:38 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 08, 2010, 10:47:36 AM

Quote from: Catchpa on March 08, 2010, 10:23:43 AM

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

So you agree that both suns look like they are in the same place? You do realize that the sextant only records where the sun appears to be, not where it is.

I'd also like to hear how geometry is different in FE theory and RE theory. Especially the rather simply geometry used by a sextant.

I don't know how the sun appears to a Flathead, they might actually be so delusional that they see the someplace else.  I'm not a Flathead, so I wouldn't know.  The geometry *is* quite simple.  One of the conclusions we can gather from the readings on the sextant: The (apparent) curvature of the earth is nearly perfectly circular.  What specific quality of bendy light would cause that?  I would think as the sun got further away it would recede from view in a curve that exponentially flattened out at the end.  But I'm no expect on bendy light and I'll have to rely on some flathead to explain it to me.

Quote from: Raist on March 08, 2010, 11:08:24 AM

Quote from: Sir Mildred Pierce on March 08, 2010, 11:01:38 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 08, 2010, 10:47:36 AM

Quote from: Catchpa on March 08, 2010, 10:23:43 AM

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

So you agree that both suns look like they are in the same place? You do realize that the sextant only records where the sun appears to be, not where it is.

I'd also like to hear how geometry is different in FE theory and RE theory. Especially the rather simply geometry used by a sextant.

I don't know how the sun appears to a Flathead, they might actually be so delusional that they see the someplace else.  I'm not a Flathead, so I wouldn't know.  The geometry *is* quite simple.  One of the conclusions we can gather from the readings on the sextant: The (apparent) curvature of the earth is nearly perfectly circular.  What specific quality of bendy light would cause that?  I would think as the sun got further away it would recede from view in a curve that exponentially flattened out at the end.  But I'm no expect on bendy light and I'll have to rely on some flathead to explain it to me.

Let me spell it out for you. It doesn't matter where in the entire universe the sun is to a sextant. Ever. The sun could be sitting on top of jupiter giving it a reach around and the sextant could only say "19 degrees above the horizon." So if the earth were flat the sun would be at a specific angle at a specific time of day and this would be how we calibrated sextants in the beginning. All of the assumptions for the size of a "round earth" would be based off this calibration.

Now take your ad hominem attacks out of this forum. You can't even understand basic concepts so you instead call the other person a "flat head" (oh noes) and say they are delusional.

Quote from: Sir Mildred Pierce on March 08, 2010, 11:22:31 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 08, 2010, 11:08:24 AM

Quote from: Sir Mildred Pierce on March 08, 2010, 11:01:38 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 08, 2010, 10:47:36 AM

Quote from: Catchpa on March 08, 2010, 10:23:43 AM

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

So you agree that both suns look like they are in the same place? You do realize that the sextant only records where the sun appears to be, not where it is.

I'd also like to hear how geometry is different in FE theory and RE theory. Especially the rather simply geometry used by a sextant.

I don't know how the sun appears to a Flathead, they might actually be so delusional that they see the someplace else.  I'm not a Flathead, so I wouldn't know.  The geometry *is* quite simple.  One of the conclusions we can gather from the readings on the sextant: The (apparent) curvature of the earth is nearly perfectly circular.  What specific quality of bendy light would cause that?  I would think as the sun got further away it would recede from view in a curve that exponentially flattened out at the end.  But I'm no expect on bendy light and I'll have to rely on some flathead to explain it to me.

Let me spell it out for you. It doesn't matter where in the entire universe the sun is to a sextant. Ever. The sun could be sitting on top of jupiter giving it a reach around and the sextant could only say "19 degrees above the horizon." So if the earth were flat the sun would be at a specific angle at a specific time of day and this would be how we calibrated sextants in the beginning. All of the assumptions for the size of a "round earth" would be based off this calibration.

Now take your ad hominem attacks out of this forum. You can't even understand basic concepts so you instead call the other person a "flat head" (oh noes) and say they are delusional.

Spelling it out and backing up something with proof are two very different things.  I'm sorry, until you provide some proof of how the sun's light is bending this way or that way, how am I supposed to understand this "basic concept"?

Light going in a straight line, now *that* is a basic concept, that I can understand.  And no matter how you dress up "bendy light", it will never be as basic a concept as light that travels in a straight line.  If bendy light is easy to understand, help me understand it, cause I'll admit, I don't understand it at all.

Then your problem has nothing to do with sextants?

So a sextant works but you think that electromagnetic acceleration theory is incorrect?

Well then let me give you some advice, why don't you go argue against electromagnetic acceleration instead of making nonsensical arguments involving a device completely irrelevant to your issue with fe theory?

Spelling it out and backing up something with proof are two very different things.  I'm sorry, until you provide some proof of how the sun's light is bending this way or that way, how am I supposed to understand this "basic concept"?

Light going in a straight line, now *that* is a basic concept, that I can understand.  And no matter how you dress up "bendy light", it will never be as basic a concept as light that travels in a straight line.  If bendy light is easy to understand, help me understand it, cause I'll admit, I don't understand it at all.

Bendy light on FE and straight light on RE both give us the appearance [supposedly] of the exact same thing. The sun appears in the same place at the same time of day on a specific day of the year because if the earth is flat and for curvature to appear, bendy light occurs.

Throughout time, we have understood the sun to be where it is because we are looking at it. All calculations with sextants come from where it looks like it is. In FET though, they reckon they're smarter than that and they know the sun isn't actually there. It is in fact somewhere else and it's light is forcing it to appear in one place. Even though the sun isn't actually there, the sextant relies on it appearing to be there.

I don't believe this though. I believe light travels straight as I can see no way that it would bend.

One of the main reasons I can't figure out this whole "bendy light" this is that no matter where you are on Earth, no matter what time it is, the angular distance between the stars NEVER changes.  Additionally the angular size of the sun and the moon never changes.  How does the Bendy Light hypothesis account for these observations?  Do you people even understand what I'm talking about when I refer to angular distance?

While we are on the subject of the sextant, I'd like to point out a video I uploaded about the Astrolabe, which is basically a fancier version of a sextant that provides a lot more information based on the position of the stars and other celestial bodies.  How's that thing work?!

Yeah Raist, bendy light is disproved by the angular distance constancy, so ner.

Yeah Raist, bendy light is disproved by the angular distance constancy, so ner.

Considering it is a theory still in its infancy, I would say it's premature to say it is disproven by a subject completed unrelated to the phenomenon it addresses.

No one has addressed the fact that maps of FE and RE differ in layout, continent shape and distance.  Its obvious that they do because a map of Flat Earth should portray EXACTLY how the continents look and are placed as the distortion in RE maps comes from trying to portray a round object on a flat projection.

For obvious reasons, FE doesn't have that problem.  However, since FE'ers often think obvious things are incredibly difficult I'm going to spell it out: Flat Earth maps are a flat projection of a flat object and should be a perfect representation, whereas most RE maps are distorted (I'm going to find a link to a RE map which has very little distortion to show the obvious difference between the maps.)

Sextants work with a RE map, which is drastically different from an FE map.  EVEN IF Sextants work with bendy light, they should not work on a RE map if FET is correct.

But they do.

Now please provide counter-evidence to this, and PLEASE STOP ARGUING OVER HOW BENDY LIGHT WOULD AFFECT SEXTANTS.

Willmore and I settled in a civilized fashion that RE'ers need to prove that bendy light would effect sextant usage before that point can be argued further.  So quit arguing about it, because its a dead issue.

No one has addressed the fact that maps of FE and RE differ in layout, continent shape and distance. 

Because most people have an attention span past that of a gnat and stay on topic.