Advice about formula for measurements

my problem isn't with trigonometry. did you even read my posts? my problem is with assuming you can automatically draw a line between any three points, which is demonstrably not true. i did not query trigonometry whatsoever, which you would know if you had even bothered to read. what is your problem? can you do anything other than straw men? i am sick of the likes of you thinking you get to belittle and ignore me just because i see through your fantasy.

I wasn't talking to you Jrowe, as you can clearly tell from literally the first line of my post. Not everything is about you

The method is to construct  two similar triangles,  it should be obvious that if you can't construct the triangles the method isn't applicable,
exactly. you can't justa ssume you are able to construct those triangles.

unless you are now claiming the method doesn't work?
it may work sometimes, it is not universally relevant.

Well, we are not assuming.  The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.
that's not even close to enough. if you have a hand, an eye and a ship in existence, that still doesn't mean you can draw a straight line in between them. not even close.

I see now that I was expecting too much to think you would respond in a logical reasoned manner,  you clearly and deliberately chose to misunderstand, and misrepresent  the method.   The only conclusion is that your self importance and ego are driving your thought processes, and rendering you incapable of logical thought.   

There is another explanation for your irrational responses, but I'll keep that to myself for now.

Well, we are not assuming.  The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.
that's not even close to enough. if you have a hand, an eye and a ship in existence, that still doesn't mean you can draw a straight line in between them. not even close.

Are you saying that your hand is immobile?  That you can't move your hand to form a straight line with the ship?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 30, 2015, 01:05:50 PM

Well, we are not assuming.  The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.
that's not even close to enough. if you have a hand, an eye and a ship in existence, that still doesn't mean you can draw a straight line in between them. not even close.

Are you saying that your hand is immobile?  That you can't move your hand to form a straight line with the ship?

not even close. i'm saying that after the measurements are taken and given to you, you can't move the hand to where you'd like it to be. the measurements are made with the hand, eye and ship in a specific position: you don't get to sort them around after that, you'll change the distances.
that is just a fact.

hence:
you have three points. you have no guarantee that they are in a straight line.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 30, 2015, 10:00:24 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 30, 2015, 01:05:50 PM

Well, we are not assuming.  The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.
that's not even close to enough. if you have a hand, an eye and a ship in existence, that still doesn't mean you can draw a straight line in between them. not even close.

Are you saying that your hand is immobile?  That you can't move your hand to form a straight line with the ship?

not even close. i'm saying that after the measurements are taken and given to you, you can't move the hand to where you'd like it to be.

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?

the measurements are made with the hand, eye and ship in a specific position:

 
Yes, by lining them up together, just as we are saying, glad you agree.

you don't get to sort them around after that, you'll change the distances.
that is just a fact.

You need to move them around to line them up properly to get the distance to the ship.  Unless you are saying you are Magneto and you can move the ship by moving your hand.

hence:
you have three points. you have no guarantee that they are in a straight line.

Well, if they aren't in a straight line, then you haven't been doing proper measurements now have you? 

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

The experiment requires that before he takes any measurements he line up his hand with the boat and that way he can be sure that they are lined up.  Then The measurements are taken and he can calculate the distance to the boat because he knows that the points line up.  Is this really that hard for you to understand?  And you think we are the ones who deliberately misunderstand things...  I am seriously cosudering blocking you because I think you might be a troll.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

The experiment requires that before he takes any measurements he line up his hand with the boat and that way he can be sure that they are lined up.  Then The measurements are taken and he can calculate the distance to the boat because he knows that the points line up.  Is this really that hard for you to understand?  And you think we are the ones who deliberately misunderstand things...  I am seriously cosudering blocking you because I think you might be a troll.

you don't get to just dismiss what i say just because you'd rather ignore me. i ask yet again, how do you know his hand, eye and boat are lined up? you're just saying "the measurements are aken after this happens." how do you know they are in that configuration?
you're asserting, that's all. if this was the case, what you say would be fine: i just urge caution, you can't assume this is always the case.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 31, 2015, 09:55:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

The experiment requires that before he takes any measurements he line up his hand with the boat and that way he can be sure that they are lined up.  Then The measurements are taken and he can calculate the distance to the boat because he knows that the points line up.  Is this really that hard for you to understand?  And you think we are the ones who deliberately misunderstand things...  I am seriously cosudering blocking you because I think you might be a troll.

you don't get to just dismiss what i say just because you'd rather ignore me. i ask yet again, how do you know his hand, eye and boat are lined up? you're just saying "the measurements are aken after this happens." how do you know they are in that configuration?
you're asserting, that's all. if this was the case, what you say would be fine: i just urge caution, you can't assume this is always the case.

I know this because otherwise the experiment wouldn't work, and sense I helped Tom figure out how to do this experiment (in PM's) I know how the experiment is set up.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:00:51 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 31, 2015, 09:55:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

The experiment requires that before he takes any measurements he line up his hand with the boat and that way he can be sure that they are lined up.  Then The measurements are taken and he can calculate the distance to the boat because he knows that the points line up.  Is this really that hard for you to understand?  And you think we are the ones who deliberately misunderstand things...  I am seriously cosudering blocking you because I think you might be a troll.

you don't get to just dismiss what i say just because you'd rather ignore me. i ask yet again, how do you know his hand, eye and boat are lined up? you're just saying "the measurements are aken after this happens." how do you know they are in that configuration?
you're asserting, that's all. if this was the case, what you say would be fine: i just urge caution, you can't assume this is always the case.

I know this because otherwise the experiment wouldn't work, and sense I helped Tom figure out how to do this experiment (in PM's) I know how the experiment is set up.

any justificaion for "I know this because otherwise the experiment wouldn't work" forthcoming? what do you mean by 'work'? of course the measurements wouldn't be accurate, that's what i'm saying.

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something.  You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring.  Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship.  This is not an assumption, it is how you measure. 

Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something.  You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring.  Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship.  This is not an assumption, it is how you measure. 

Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?

you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:23:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something.  You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring.  Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship.  This is not an assumption, it is how you measure. 

Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?

you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.

So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP.  If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:34:37 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:23:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something.  You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring.  Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship.  This is not an assumption, it is how you measure. 

Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?

you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.

So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP.  If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?

looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:37:56 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:34:37 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:23:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something.  You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring.  Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship.  This is not an assumption, it is how you measure. 

Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?

you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.

So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP.  If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?

looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.

Why don't you read the thread? (something that you sure accuse others of not doing when you are the one not understanding things)  He has had issues with the math behind the answers, and not how the measurement was taken.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:46:34 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:37:56 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:34:37 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:23:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something.  You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring.  Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship.  This is not an assumption, it is how you measure. 

Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?

you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.

So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP.  If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?

looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.

Why don't you read the thread? (something that you sure accuse others of not doing when you are the one not understanding things)  He has had issues with the math behind the answers, and not how the measurement was taken.

exactly. pay attention. my issue is with your math: the assumptions you make about the observations. it would be the same as if you'd assumed a 45 degree angle. you just can't do that.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:03:27 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:46:34 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:37:56 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:34:37 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:23:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something.  You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring.  Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship.  This is not an assumption, it is how you measure. 

Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?

you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.

So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP.  If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?

looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.

Why don't you read the thread? (something that you sure accuse others of not doing when you are the one not understanding things)  He has had issues with the math behind the answers, and not how the measurement was taken.

exactly. pay attention. my issue is with your math:

No, your issue isn't with the math (well, it might be also but one thing at a time), your issue has been with the taking of the measurement.

the assumptions you make about the observations.

See?  You contradicted yourself here.  You first said your issue was about the math, then you say it is about our assumptions, which there were none, about the setup of the measurement.  That is not math there.

it would be the same as if you'd assumed a 45 degree angle. you just can't do that.

What are you going on about?  When you measure something, you line your measuring device up with what you are measuring.  If you are having trouble with understanding the simple concept of measuring something, how could you possibly think you have figured more complex ideas out?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:05:57 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:03:27 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:46:34 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:37:56 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:34:37 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:23:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something.  You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring.  Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship.  This is not an assumption, it is how you measure. 

Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?

you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.

So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP.  If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?

looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.

Why don't you read the thread? (something that you sure accuse others of not doing when you are the one not understanding things)  He has had issues with the math behind the answers, and not how the measurement was taken.

exactly. pay attention. my issue is with your math:

No, your issue isn't with the math (well, it might be also but one thing at a time), your issue has been with the taking of the measurement.

Quote

the assumptions you make about the observations.

See?  You contradicted yourself here.  You first said your issue was about the math, then you say it is about our assumptions, which there were none, about the setup of the measurement.  That is not math there.

Quote

it would be the same as if you'd assumed a 45 degree angle. you just can't do that.

What are you going on about?  When you measure something, you line your measuring device up with what you are measuring.  If you are having trouble with understanding the simple concept of measuring something, how could you possibly think you have figured more complex ideas out?

your math relies upon an assumption you cannot hold. i have no problem with the person taking the observations: your math ommitted an unknown. there should be the smaller triangle with the hand at the far side, and then there should be a quadrilateral appended to it: you assumed falsely that the hypotenuse of the first triangle must lead smoothly into the side of the second. this is not necessarily the case. making a false assumption is a problem with your math.
try to pay attention rather than obsessing over semantics.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:16:22 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:05:57 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:03:27 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:46:34 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:37:56 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 10:34:37 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 10:23:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 09:30:07 AM

Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.

Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something.  You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring.  Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship.  This is not an assumption, it is how you measure. 

Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?

you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.

So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP.  If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?

looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.

Why don't you read the thread? (something that you sure accuse others of not doing when you are the one not understanding things)  He has had issues with the math behind the answers, and not how the measurement was taken.

exactly. pay attention. my issue is with your math:

No, your issue isn't with the math (well, it might be also but one thing at a time), your issue has been with the taking of the measurement.

Quote

the assumptions you make about the observations.

See?  You contradicted yourself here.  You first said your issue was about the math, then you say it is about our assumptions, which there were none, about the setup of the measurement.  That is not math there.

Quote

it would be the same as if you'd assumed a 45 degree angle. you just can't do that.

What are you going on about?  When you measure something, you line your measuring device up with what you are measuring.  If you are having trouble with understanding the simple concept of measuring something, how could you possibly think you have figured more complex ideas out?

your math relies upon an assumption you cannot hold. i have no problem with the person taking the observations: your math ommitted an unknown. there should be the smaller triangle with the hand at the far side, and then there should be a quadrilateral appended to it: you assumed falsely that the hypotenuse of the first triangle must lead smoothly into the side of the second. this is not necessarily the case. making a false assumption is a problem with your math.
try to pay attention rather than obsessing over semantics.

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.  If you say your had is 10cm, and the other object is the same apparent length as your hand, you have lined the other side of your hand to the other side of the object.  You have 5 points now.

Eye
Left side of hand
Left side of object
Right side of hand
Right side of object

The eye, left side of hand and left side of object line up
The eye, right side of hand and right side of object line up

You have two straight lines that converge on a single point, your eye.

You have made two triangles whose sides perfectly line up.  There is no other way about it.  The OP specifically mentions how he measured the ship.  You are the one not understanding what is going on.

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.

If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:30:12 AM

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.

If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.

BJ,   you have more patience that I do,   he needs to get some new lines however,  they keep coming up again and again in every argument.  I have a theory, and that is that he doesn't even try to understand, he just plays the dumb card to frustrate debate.  If logic fails he falls back on semantics and false assertions.  Next thing will be to question what is a line?, and how do you know the aether hasn't distorted it in 5 dimensional mirror space. 

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:30:12 AM

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.

If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.

great, good for you. why is it a straight line?

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:34:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:30:12 AM

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.

If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.

great, good for you. why is it a straight line?

Because light travels in straight lines.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:34:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:30:12 AM

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.

If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.

great, good for you. why is it a straight line?

You called it Rayzor

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 01, 2015, 06:39:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:34:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:30:12 AM

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.

If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.

great, good for you. why is it a straight line?

Because light travels in straight lines.

so the light from the boat reaches your eye. even if i grant your supposition (which if you knew anything about quantum mechanics you'd know it was bs: light can curve, straight lines are just favored because they usually aren't cancelled out) that wouldn't mean it came by the hand. you've got two points lined up, the eye and the boat. the hand is used to measure, but all that requires is two independently straight lines: hand to eye, hand to boat.
you've got a triangle, but not the one you need.

Quote from: Weatherwax on June 01, 2015, 07:31:07 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 01, 2015, 06:39:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:34:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:30:12 AM

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.

If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.

great, good for you. why is it a straight line?

Because light travels in straight lines.

so the light from the boat reaches your eye. even if i grant your supposition (which if you knew anything about quantum mechanics you'd know it was bs: light can curve, straight lines are just favored because they usually aren't cancelled out) that wouldn't mean it came by the hand. you've got two points lined up, the eye and the boat. the hand is used to measure, but all that requires is two independently straight lines: hand to eye, hand to boat.
you've got a triangle, but not the one you need.

And why should we take your word about how light travels when you can't even understand how to measure something?

And the Jrowe show goes on in all it's tedious glory.

Seriously, are there any threads that this fucknut doesn't post all over?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 01, 2015, 10:16:02 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on June 01, 2015, 07:31:07 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 01, 2015, 06:39:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:34:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:30:12 AM

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.

If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.

great, good for you. why is it a straight line?

Because light travels in straight lines.

so the light from the boat reaches your eye. even if i grant your supposition (which if you knew anything about quantum mechanics you'd know it was bs: light can curve, straight lines are just favored because they usually aren't cancelled out) that wouldn't mean it came by the hand. you've got two points lined up, the eye and the boat. the hand is used to measure, but all that requires is two independently straight lines: hand to eye, hand to boat.
you've got a triangle, but not the one you need.

And why should we take your word about how light travels when you can't even understand how to measure something?

you don't have to take my word, look up your own scientists.
i understand full well how to measure: i also understand how not to make assumptions.

Quote from: BJ1234 on June 01, 2015, 10:36:55 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 01, 2015, 10:16:02 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on June 01, 2015, 07:31:07 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 01, 2015, 06:39:04 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 31, 2015, 11:34:26 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 31, 2015, 11:30:12 AM

If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.

If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.

great, good for you. why is it a straight line?

Because light travels in straight lines.

so the light from the boat reaches your eye. even if i grant your supposition (which if you knew anything about quantum mechanics you'd know it was bs: light can curve, straight lines are just favored because they usually aren't cancelled out) that wouldn't mean it came by the hand. you've got two points lined up, the eye and the boat. the hand is used to measure, but all that requires is two independently straight lines: hand to eye, hand to boat.
you've got a triangle, but not the one you need.

And why should we take your word about how light travels when you can't even understand how to measure something?

you don't have to take my word, look up your own scientists.
i understand full well how to measure:

SO when measuring something in the distance with your hand as reference, what would you do?

i also understand how not to make assumptions.

Other than all the assumptions you make when you say you are right and everyone else is wrong?