What would change your mind?

I doubt he is.

I think I'm picking up the odd hint here and there to suggest you may be right.

I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed

All while dodging the questions posed to you to point out why your claim about the horizon is factually incorrect.
And yet again, you avoid those simple questions.
WHY?
Is it because you know that they will expose your dishonesty? That they will show that your claim is completely wrong and your justification for why you think Earth is flat does not hold at all?

How did the measurements first come about to be close to what people like yourself believe to be accurate.

Already explained that, now how about sticking to the topic of the thread and answering the questions posed to you?

Once more, for a round (globe) Earth, you accept that if you look directly down, you see Earth. You claim that looking directly level you see sky, (which holds for a FOV near 0).
So do you accept the logical consequence of this, that if you start looking straight down and raise your head up, as you do so you reach a point where there is an imaginary line across your vision which divides the land below from the sky above?

You have avoided this very simple question repeatedly.
The only reason why is if you know it will show that you are wrong.
So can you answer it this time, or at least say why you refuse?



, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?
[/quote]

Granted, yes, the answer provided deals with astronomical objects. Which I believe is more challenging than a terrestrial object.

There are ways to gauge the size from a picture too, but even that is not enough for you, I am quite sure.

"To work out the size of the object on the sensor, work out it's height in pixels, divide by the image height in pixels and multiply by the physical height of the sensor."

Pretty pointless to try to provide you with answers, as in your opinion none of them hold any water, yet you yourself cannot come up with any evidence for your, quite inane, ramblings.

EDIT: As someone already wrote you:
"You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else."

Rather than accept you cannot do my experiment and get any accurate reading,you go into a frenzy.
Just admit that you cannot do it.

Actually, what came first: the Earth is flat, or there is no space (as RE sees it)? Might help to unravel things, because if there is no space, then, of course, the measuring of astronomical objects cannot happen, right?

Do you believe we have been to the Moon? How far does the conspiracy go? Or are you of the opinion there is no conspiracy, but the Earth is still flat, it's just that everyone is dumb, and cannot see it, the maps work for some odd reason and so on?

Can you answer my question?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 12:05:35 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on September 24, 2020, 11:31:10 PM

I found this:
The most common is to measure the apparent angular diameter of the planet – how big it looks against the sky – very precisely using a telescope. Combining this with a measure of its distance (deduced from its orbit around the Sun) reveals the planet's actual size.

I am sure you will now ask how do we know how far the Sun is, or something similar.

EDIT: And as the answer above was provided by someone working for Sony Depthsensing Solutions, I'd imagine there will be some noise related to multinationals and their reptilian backers.

A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?

Doe some wavelenght stuff, use a radar, take pics with lenses spaced appart etc. Many options tbh.

This means nothing and you know it.

Can you answer my question?

I did. And others answered it, too.

You choose to disregard it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 12:05:35 AM

A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?

Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.

We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.

OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).

Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?

Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 02:46:03 AM

Can you answer my question?

I did. And others answered it, too.

You choose to disregard it.

Because you don't explain it. You just shoot a copy/paste in and expect me to accept it.

Show me exactly how you can calculate my ball at distance.
Explain it and why you get to the answer.
I see mountains being used and trigonometry from ball diameters and angular diameters.
What do they all mean to get back to a end calculated point?

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1

The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!

EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.

Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?

You claim what we know is wrong, but you cannot provide a method to prove it is.

Exactly. Nowhere near to my satisfaction.
Copy and paste does not solve any issues, it just makes your life easier.

Well I can honestly say that I haven't copied any pasted any of my explanations.  You don't need to when you know what you are talking about.  I can't speak for others obviously.  I guess your 'satisfaction' is controlled mainly by your beliefs so if that is anything to go by I have got no chance of that.  Nor has anyone else I doubt.

As regards to your other comment.  I will stop replying when I get bored with this particular verbal tennis match.  At the moment it is still quite fun so I might just carry on for now and see what other nonsense you can come up with as a way of trying to defend yourself.

You claim what we know is wrong, but you cannot provide a method to prove it is.

But you can't prove it shows a reality.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1

The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!

EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.

Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?

All of that is based on knowing the size of something.

How does the size of something come about to gauge and also get distance?

Quote from: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 03:09:19 AM

You claim what we know is wrong, but you cannot provide a method to prove it is.

But you can't prove it shows a reality.

Well, I consider what we have real. You have another opinion. "Our" reality works, your exists only in your head.

Quote

Exactly. Nowhere near to my satisfaction.
Copy and paste does not solve any issues, it just makes your life easier.

Well I can honestly say that I haven't copied any pasted any of my explanations.  You don't need to when you know what you are talking about.  I can't speak for others obviously.  I guess your 'satisfaction' is controlled mainly by your beliefs so if that is anything to go by I have got no chance of that.  Nor has anyone else I doubt.

As regards to your other comment.  I will stop replying when I get bored with this particular verbal tennis match.  At the moment it is still quite fun so I might just carry on for now and see what other nonsense you can come up with as a way of trying to defend yourself.

Feel free but you've never answered the question.

Quote from: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 03:00:31 AM

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1

The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!

EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.

Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?

All of that is based on knowing the size of something.

How does the size of something come about to gauge and also get distance?

Well, yes. It is true. We need to know something first. How far do we need to go?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 04:00:42 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on September 25, 2020, 03:00:31 AM

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class11th-physics/in-in-11th-physics-units-and-measurement/in-in-11th-physics-physical-quantities-and-their-measurement/a/angular-measure-1

The fun thing is it works, even though you choose not to believe it!

EDIT: Sure, I do copy-paste. As there are examples of how to do it. You on the other hand have nothing to show to strengthen your position.

Care to tell us how the methods mentioned do not work?

All of that is based on knowing the size of something.

How does the size of something come about to gauge and also get distance?

Well, yes. It is true. We need to know something first. How far do we need to go?

You need to go as far as you need to.
Seeing as this was supposedly done in ancient historical times and is used as some sort of catalyst, then let's start there.

Quote from: JJA on September 24, 2020, 10:05:20 AM

This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.

There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?

You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.

Fine, lets play your game.

To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.

Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.

Simple.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 11:23:36 PM

Quote from: JJA on September 24, 2020, 10:05:20 AM

This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.

There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?

You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.

Fine, lets play your game.

To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.

Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.

Simple.

Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.

Seeing as this was supposedly done in ancient historical times and is used as some sort of catalyst, then let's start there.

Again, not that it matters, but it would appear it was done around 250 BC (or BCE). Some Greek dude measured the distance to the Moon. He used parallax to do so. Then another Greek used that to gauge the size and distance of the Sun. He was off, but it was a starting point.

Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.

Oh please. He answered you with everything you need to know.

EDIT: You can buy Steiner binocs with laser rangefinder:
https://finnaccuracy.com/products/steiner-military-binocular-m830r-lrf-10x50-sumr-laser-rangefinder

Quote from: JJA on September 25, 2020, 04:33:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 11:23:36 PM

Quote from: JJA on September 24, 2020, 10:05:20 AM

This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.

There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?

You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.

Fine, lets play your game.

To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.

Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.

Simple.

Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.

I said radar, not laser.  Try again.

This is how trigonometry works.  If you don't understand, I'm not going to teach you basic math.  Study on your own time.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 25, 2020, 01:44:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 12:05:35 AM

A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?

Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.

We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.

Quote from: robinofloxley

OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).

Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?

Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.

Not sure why I'm bothering, but here's how you would calculate the distance. Not going to bother with the size.

Your ball is at position A, the observer is at B. Observer sees the ball lined up with the distant mountain peak at A'. Observer moves distance d to position C. The ball is no longer lined up with the distant mountain, it appears at position A'' in relation to the mountain.

Using a sextant or similar instrument, observer measures the angle between the edge of the ball at A'' and the top of the mountain, that's angle A'-A-A'' as θ. The angle BAC is therefore also θ. So now you have a right angled triangle ABC and an angle θ.

The unknown side (marked with a ?) is therefore d/Tan(θ).

So if you were to move sideways 100 metres and measure the angle at 45°, your ball is 100 metres distant. If the angle is 5°, it's 1143 metres away.

Edit: Just want to correct myself here. The observer measures the angle A'-C-A'', not A'-A'-A'', however since the mountain is very much further away than the ball, this angle is as near as makes no difference equal to θ.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 04:27:24 AM

Seeing as this was supposedly done in ancient historical times and is used as some sort of catalyst, then let's start there.

Again, not that it matters, but it would appear it was done around 250 BC (or BCE). Some Greek dude measured the distance to the Moon. He used parallax to do so. Then another Greek used that to gauge the size and distance of the Sun. He was off, but it was a starting point.

Ok, we'll start with this 250 BC (or BCE) carry on and what exactly did the greek dude do to measure the distance to the moon.
Basically explain what went on.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 04:51:14 AM

Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.

Oh please. He answered you with everything you need to know.

EDIT: You can buy Steiner binocs with laser rangefinder:
https://finnaccuracy.com/products/steiner-military-binocular-m830r-lrf-10x50-sumr-laser-rangefinder

So you believe you can bounce a laser off  one of your stars and back to you?
Or is it your moon or sun or one of your planet things?

You see, I know we can use a laser to get a distance. Which is fine if it comes back. But that's a short distance and it does not measure something you do not know the size of and nor would trigonometry.

Your belief in it all is fine but you are simply trying to tell me it's a truth and you have never tried any of it to get any real feedback.

If you have, then explain it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 04:51:14 AM

Quote from: JJA on September 25, 2020, 04:33:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 11:23:36 PM

Quote from: JJA on September 24, 2020, 10:05:20 AM

This is why nobody wants to put time into debating you.

You demand to be told things, then when you are given the information you just ignore it, and demand something else.

Why should anyone bother when you have just shown that you don't care?

It's not anyone elses fault you can't understand basic trigonometry. It's all nonsense to you, and that's completely due to your ignorance on the subject.  Take some basic online classes and come back and try again.

There's plenty of copy and paste explanations made. There's plenty of wiki stuff offered.
I'm asking for one of you to answer teh question I posed, from your own mind and using whatever tools you require to show me  how you would calculate what I mentioned....which is, this:
Let's make this a bit simpler because what you're saying is massive guesswork based on made up nonsense by whoever started this garbage.

So let's make this distance stuff a bit easier.

I have a ball the size of which only I know.
I place the ball at a set distance.

I offer you all the tools you require to tell me the diameter of that ball and the distance it is at.
What tools do you use and how do you get it correct....or close to being correct?

You asked how it was done, I gave you several examples. You just ignored all of them and came up with a new challenge.

Fine, lets play your game.

To tell the distance to your ball, I'll bounce a radar pulse off of it. The time of flight gives me distance.

Now that I know the distance, I can take a picture of it with a camera, and knowing the focal length and image sensor size I can solve for it's diameter with trigonometry since I have one side and two angles to work with.

Simple.

Tell me how you bounce a laser off a ball and back to you?
Also tell me how this trigonometry works with your angles to get your distance and ball size.

I said radar, not laser.  Try again.

This is how trigonometry works.  If you don't understand, I'm not going to teach you basic math.  Study on your own time.

I know how trigonometry works. I'm telling you it doesn't work for your fictional stars .
It's great for building walls and such.
It's no good for finding distance to fictional things and equally no good to find sizes of fictional things.

Radar was mentioned, too. As were other methods. Just for a change you could tell us what it is with those methods you do not believe works? You ask, you are given answers. We ask, you give nothing.

As I am sure you understand, the majority have no problems operating with the model we have, yet you cannot tell us how that is possible if the Earth really is flat as you claim.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 02:54:12 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 25, 2020, 01:44:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2020, 12:05:35 AM

A ball of unknown size in the distance.
How do you find the ball size and distance?

Pretty much every discovery is built on some other discovery which came before it. If the foundations are sound and every brick on top is sound then you start from that point and move onwards and upwards. If you absolutely insist that we personally verify everything from the ground up before doing anything, then no progress will ever be made because it would take years to start from first principles, learn the required mathematics to be able to verify every equation, repeat every experiment ever made etc. etc.

We don't do that, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. This is how progress is made.

Quote from: robinofloxley

OK, so your ball of an unknown size and distance. Let's suppose the distance is modest, half a mile at most. Let's suppose there is a very distinctive mountain peak in the very far distance, 100 miles away or more. Line up the ball with the mountain peak. Walk a few hundred metres or so sideways. The ball will no longer line up with the mountain peak. Use a sextant or some other device to measure the angle between the ball and the mountain peak. Refer to the Wikipedia article on stellar parallax and use trigonometry to determine the approximate distance to the ball (assume the mountain is far enough away that it's effectively an infinite distance away compared to the ball).

Measure the angular diameter of the ball. Since you know the distance to the ball, use trigonometry to calculate its diameter. Happy now?

Tell me about this angular diameter and how it traingulates to give you distance and size.

Not sure why I'm bothering, but here's how you would calculate the distance. Not going to bother with the size.

Your ball is at position A, the observer is at B. Observer sees the ball lined up with the distant mountain peak at A'. Observer moves distance d to position C. The ball is no longer lined up with the distant mountain, it appears at position A'' in relation to the mountain.

Using a sextant or similar instrument, observer measures the angle between the edge of the ball at A'' and the top of the mountain, that's angle A'-A-A'' as θ. The angle BAC is therefore also θ. So now you have a right angled triangle ABC and an angle θ.

The unknown side (marked with a ?) is therefore d/Tan(θ).

So if you were to move sideways 100 metres and measure the angle at 45°, your ball is 100 metres distant. If the angle is 5°, it's 1143 metres away.

Edit: Just want to correct myself here. The observer measures the angle A'-C-A'', not A'-A'-A'', however since the mountain is very much further away than the ball, this angle is as near as makes no difference equal to θ.

And how big is the ball?

So you believe you can bounce a laser off  one of your stars and back to you?
Or is it your moon or sun or one of your planet things?

You see, I know we can use a laser to get a distance. Which is fine if it comes back. But that's a short distance and it does not measure something you do not know the size of and nor would trigonometry.

That is for the Moon, for other astronomical objects it is my understanding they use different methods.

You accept laser rangefinding works.

What is your issue with the other listed methods?