Видео

I appreciate your candor, and yes, I should probably be less sarcastic and more charitable in how I deal with others, even when (perhaps especially when) they fail to behave similarly. God bless.

You must have missed that the claims of flat earthers being discussed here are beyond ridiculous. Essentially grade schoolers arguing that 2+2=5 with people who can do calculus. Thad is an expert in celestial navigation. He mentions all the other people who have demonstrated how celestial navigation shows how it is impossible on a flat earth. So this video has a certain tone to it. One born of exasperation with endless "nuh-uhs" from the flerfers. The tone is very deserved, and to most observers, well merited. I fail to see ANY "lack of sincerity coupled with an abundance of pride" in it. That comment is far more appropriate to the 2+2=5 flerfers addressed in the video.

Very well put

I've actually done that, and it resulting in the fix being about 450 nautical miles off. I show that about nine and half minutes into my 'Correcting Brian's Logic' video. 😎

@@protothad837 brilliant. I missed that one. Off to watch. 👍

What are you trying to say?

Sorry, the 'rest of the stars' can't be see all over the world. I can't see polaris and the most northerly constellation from my home location at 32degrees south and I am currently at about 27degrees north and could not see the most southerly constellations last night. It helps if you actually look.

Sorry should have added that I have tried to see Polaris when south of, but close to the equator and you can't. That does not make sense on a flat earth but it does on a spherical one. For confirmation I tried in 2023 from Africa and a few weeks ago from South America. Got the result you would expect from a spherical earth both times.

My attempts to get my sailboat to reach orbital velocity have indeed been unsuccessful. You need really good wind for that I expect. 😜

@@protothad837 LOL!!!!!! Have you tried an asymmetrical? Maybe some foils...

A liquid bending? That's crazy.

Ship Model Basins are full of bendy water thus proving the globe. Globe confirmed 💯🌎

@@awatt only god could talk things into being, apparently. So your words don't count. Are you confusing wavey water, with bendy, curvy water? 😂🙄

@@mightyatom1404 Water visibly curves in Ship Model Basins just as God intended. Globe confirmed 💯🌍

@@awatt only when contained, a bit like cerebral fluids, around a topographic surface. Do you have any? 🙄🤡🌎

None of them did too well on McToon's $10,000 celestial navigation offer.

They also say that a sextant can't work over a curved surface therefore they can't work at sea due to waves.

Get education.

Get a clue.

Earth is FAT.

Sorry to hear about your negative experience. The objective lens is held in place by a plastic ring with a press-tight fit. If the ring is missing you should still be able to glue the lens into place. Given that so few people nowadays buy a sextant I can understand that Davis might have parts issues.

So in this new sidebar, the olde' "Periscope CN film" popped up! It starts out slowly removing cobwebs, then starts going full gallop. I can see immediately where Mr Ten confuses flat with/by the film's inclusion of a ground mock up using a pole, circle and movable hypotenuse. It's just a graphic. I'm sure this same graphic has been immortalized throughout cyber lol. But the Divergent personage? That's kinda' odd.. Cheers! (I'm number 565)

"Please answer each as I have a follow up." Who cares about your "follow up", your questions bring the lolz!

Interesting questions. I'll answer them one per comment. I look forward to your follow-up questions. 🙂

ANSWER 1) Latitude lines are not just based on elevation angles to Polaris. That is one way to approximate your current latitude, but because Polaris is slightly off center from the celestial north pole, and because refraction does indeed add some error when measuring near the horizon, other methods provided a better method of establishing the overall arrangement of latitude and longitude. Observations of a great many stars contributed to our system of navigation. The ground position of each star travels a precise east to west path, tracing a full line of latitude once per sidereal day. By using something called a zenith sector to observe when a star passes directly overhead, we can measure both the path and size of that latitude line. This has the advantage of eliminating refraction based errors (refraction drops to zero as your sight line approaches the zenith). This method establishes not only the latitude line, but the relative scale of longitude at each latitude... which confirms the spherical shape of the earth.

ANSWER 2) Yes, if you surface and climb out onto the deck or conning tower, you can use a sextant to do celestial navigation on a submarine. It works no different than on any other ship in that case, so you still have to do dip correction. It is technically also possible to do celestial navigation via the periscope, but in that case you sight directly on the star and NOT the horizon, measuring the co-altitude directly from the vertical much like you would using a bubble sextant. In truth, modern submarines navigate via inertial guidance, sea floor mapping, and other methods that do not require them to surface.

ANSWER 3) In theory the dip correction is zero at an elevation of zero, but only because at that point the horizon is literally sloshing against your eyeball. In reality, we never do celestial navigation with our face in the water. Indeed, since refraction gets far worse close to the surface of the water, it is best practice to take sights from well above the surface. There would be virtually no dip correction on a flat earth, because the laws of perspective dictate that a flat, not curving surface will converge toward the vanishing point at your eye level. We can work through the geometry of that if you like.

Look more closely at the image. The green line is clearly not the surface. The surface is that curving thing below the green line. Your claim that a flat surface is needed is just a begging the question fallacy... a flat earth belief you've never put to the test by doing any actual celestial navigation. But I'm still willing to help you with that whenever you decide to move past parroting silly talking points. Who knows... you might actually have fun. It may even change your whole worldview. 🙂👍

It's not begging the question because you used 90° to get the distance on the surface from the ground position of the star. ​​How do you get 90° on a sphere ​@@protothad837?

@@TB-xx8vj How do we get 90°? It's pretty obvious when you just look at the diagram. The surface is never a line in our angle. The 90 degrees is just the difference between vertical and horizontal. Horizontal is a line projected from our eye. It. Is. Not. The. Surface. Your assumption that the surface is a line in our angle is just a... (drum-roll please)... Begging the Question Fallacy. 😎

​@protothad837 The begging the question fallacy is the circle you drew underneath the horizontal plane that you use to get 90° for calculating the distance from the ground position of the star. You have proven that you need a flat earth for celestial navigation.

@@TB-xx8vj _You have proven that you need a flat earth for celestial navigation_ If it also works with the circle underneath, then why are you begging the question by assuming that it's flat?

There's no such thing as a 'flat earth' elevation angle. Elevation angles are measured relative to horizontal, not the surface. Perhaps you should actually watch the video? 🙂

A horizontal baseline to measure elevation angles of stars is a flat earth. You need a flat earth for latitude on the surface. So it's silly to say the horizontal baseline is not the surface. Similarly, you need a horizontal plane for azimuth angles to get longitude on the surface.

Here's a good question. Why don't they use a globe on ships,​@@protothad837? Is it because it doesn't work? 😂

@@TB-xx8vj No, it's just a dumbass question typical of a do nothing incompetent like you.

@@TB-xx8vj Latitude and longitude do not work on a flat earth. The longitude scale always matches the cosine of latitude, getting narrower both north and south of the equator (matching a sphere... not flat surface). This is reflected in every navigation chart, plotting sheet, and the very process of navigation itself. This might become clear to you if you make an effort to set aside your confirmation bias and actually think about what this video is showing you... and especially if you try the process for yourself.

It is not even new technology. I think I remember reading an article a while back about the U2 spy plane having something like that.

As far as I know, no flat earther's were in attendance. I keep offering to teach them... but they seem happy just argue about angles without progressing to actually doing any cel nav for themselves. 🤷‍♀

It's 100% dishonesty. Maybe stupidity factors in there somewhere.

No, that was a more recent sail on a 29 ft Catalina on Lake Michigan... one of the boats in the sailing center's fleet.

Hi Petey, Brian's brain cell will have exploded by now!

@@marcg1686 😆

@@marcg1686 debatable if he even had ONE.

LOL!! A four hour debunk where not a single fact will be uttered.

Great! Another opportunity to kick Brian around!!!

I was tempted to hold off and release this video on the anniversary of the initial 'Response to Tenth Man' video as another Christmas present to that crew... but ultimately this is not really a video aimed at flat earthers, just anyone interested in cel nav... so Merry Christmas! 🙂

Challenge for you, moran: Learn to navigate with a sextant or STFU. Moran.

Sorry, but you are denying reality. You can measure and confirm the dip of the horizon using a theodolite. 'Dip' refers to the ANGULAR dip of your lower sight line toward the horizon. That is why the dip correction formula returns an answer in arc minutes and is subtracted from your sextant ANGLE. That pulls the lower sight line up to horizontal, because elevation angles are defined as being measured from horizontal at *eye level*. You are just parroting a flat earth cope that is used to avoid facing the reality of a completely globe based process. This is all stuff that becomes clear if you stop listening to flat earth con artists and learn the actual process. I'm willing to help you with that. 👍

@protothad837 The dip of the horizon isn't measured with a sextant, that's nonsense! But dip correction to the sea level from the observer highd, Yes

@@JonBernhards66 You are again missing the point. The dip of the horizon is part of the angle we measured with the sextant. We calculate how much it is based on eye height, which gives the ANGLE in arc minutes that we subtract from the sextant angle. The 'dip' is an angular measurement... not a height in feet or meters. And again... you can verify and measure that dip for yourself using a theodolite. The horizon dips below horizontal. That is just a fact of reality.

The dip of the horizon is the reason we apply a dip correction to the observed altitude angle.

Let's address your claims one by one: 1) As soon as you said 'times 60 nautical miles', you admitted the globe. Multiplying an angle by a distance unit is an application of the arc length formula... it gives you a CURVING distance, not a flat one. 2) Your comment on circles of equal altitude is ironic considering this video demonstrates how they work on a GLOBE, and no flat earther has ever shown them working flat. The debunk of your claim is literally in the video you are commenting on. 3) The claim that angles only work on a flat earth is classic begging the question fallacy as well as a very silly cope. Our angle is made from sight lines that are ABOVE the surface. The surface of the earth is never a line in our angle. Again, these are all things you will understand if you ever learn the actual process instead of flat earth talking points. I'm still willing to help you with that... just let me know. 👍

@@protothad837 60 nautical miles' You can divide that circle into 360 degrees, then split each degree into sixty minutes. One minute of a degree equals one nautical mile. Circles of equal altitude are circles of EQUAL altitude, NOTHING ELSE! Flat Earth is also navigated using a circle around the North Pole and the pattern of the Sun so wide at the shoreline of Antarctica. Therefore I'm not admitting the globe. Hope you understand that!

@@JonBernhards66 You definitely have some confusion about how this all works. The 'equal altitude' in these circles is referring only to the altitude ANGLE that you read on the sextant. The 60 nautical miles per degree is referring to the distance from the Ground Position of the celestial body to the observer somewhere on that circle... It has nothing to do with distance around the circumference. That distance from the GP to the observer is a curving arc length. It does not result in correct latitude longitude coordinates if treated as flat. It only works on a globe shaped earth... as my video demonstrates. Real world navigation only works with spherical geometry. Sorry.

"You have a 50 degree siding of the Sun above the horizon, that's a right angle triangle, subtract it from 90, and you get 40, 40 times 60 nautical miles, you are 2400 nautical miles from the GP of the Sun." LMAO!!!!!! Are you for f**king REAL!!!!! The sighting angle changes for all hours of daylight!!!! So by your "thinking" your position and the distance of the sun above the earth changes hour by hour!!! Bonus question: since it's a right angle triangle, what's the distance of the sun above the earth?????? How do you think a local noon sun sighting works??? Don't bother, I've already blown my beer through my nose from your incredible bozoness.

@@protothad837 I am amazed you haven't addressed this: "You have a 50 degree siding of the Sun above the horizon, that's a right angle triangle, subtract it from 90, and you get 40, 40 times 60 nautical miles, you are 2400 nautical miles from the GP of the Sun." This guy has a big round red nose, powder white complexion, long frizzy red hair, and really big red shoes. Krusty here gets more bonus points for not knowing about the analemma and how it factors in to even a simple noon sighting.

It is ironic that you are saying that as a comment on a video showing how it does in fact work on a GLOBE. Halfway into this video I demonstrate how real world sextant angles are directly applied as arc lengths on the surface of globe to intersect at correct coordinates. No flat earther has ever shown circles of equal altitude working flat... Because flat earth is wrong, and *it can't work flat*.

just parroting empty claims. the typical flerf response.

Curve obviously visible over large bodies of water in Ship Model Basins. Globe confirmed 💯🌍

Boats dissappear bottom up. Proof for curvature. Evidence of Flattardia does not exist.

Your argument would be more compelling if it was accompanied by a demonstration showing how celestial navigation works on a flat earth. I and many others have shown how it works on a globe shaped earth.. but not a single flat earther has picked up a sextant to demonstrate turning sextant angles into latitude longitude coordinates... let alone showing it working flat. What are they afraid of?

​@protothad837 u said the mythical right angles. Care to elaborate?

@@protothad837 actually, every navigator that picks up a sextant understood and understand that the seas are level and flat.

@@protothad837 man, just like everyone else, we just went along with the earth being a ball. Until you actually look. Take a good hard look, and you'll see that it's actually flat as flat can be

@@stellerpolaris I think you will find I said mythical right TRIANGLE, not angle. We do use a right angle... it is simply the angle made by horizontal and vertical. That is bisected by our sight line to the celestial body, dividing it into the altitude angle and co-altitude angle. What we really want is the co-altitude (the amount the celestial body declines from the zenith)... and we can get that indirectly by subtracting the altitude angle (the amount it rises from horizontal) from 90. But note there is no right triangle involved in any of that... just a right angle we've spit into two angles. If there was a triangle, we would be using a trig function to solve for the distance of to the GP... but instead we only multiple by a constant, which is an application of the arc length formula... which gives you a CURVING distance.

Well, if it's propaganda, at least it's backed by evidence and real world experience.🤷‍♀

There has been a current map since 1892. Latitudinally and longitudinally(aka geographically correct) in every way. This is absolute fact. 😭

@@powers1776reset thats the thing, such maps doesnt exists for a flat earth, despite the fact that such a map would be trivial to produce if the world where flat.

​@@powers1776reset Show me that map. I want to see that map. Globe confirmed 💯🌍

@@powers1776reset "There has been a current map since 1892. Latitudinally (SIC) and longitudinally(aka geographically correct) in every way. " You realize that map you speak of, does not have correct distances. Oh, how did you miss that?? Because you're a complete eejut. Sheesh are you pathetic.