Fear of the Sextant
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- In honor of the two year anniversary of the so called Year of the Sextant being declared, I explore flat earther's fear of the sextant and their continuing reluctance to test their beliefs by ever doing any celestial navigation.
Yes, I'm technically a bit late releasing this video. At least I'm not two whole years late.
There has never been a shortage of people willing to buy feelings of adequacy from snake oil salesmen.
You were mentioned in the Nathan Show. Where Nathan tried to discredit you.
@@mymumbakescakes of course he would. He sees me as a threat to his snake oil business.
@@profphilbell2075 Nathan was using the video where you were trying to educate Mitch from Australia.
I still find it difficult to believe that we have flerfs down under. Thankfully there are only a hand full of them.
@@mymumbakescakes Yes, it’s hard to fathom that anyone on this side of the world would believe that flat earth nonsense. On the other hand, I’m not convinced Mitch is one of them. He was hoping to make a quid of stupid people, but didn’t have the commitment that Oakley and others have.
❤an 23 seconds eastren tonight I will prove Jesus power. All black and white sheep are allowed level 1 portion of youth longevity digestion an self beauty Jesus energy wash. Here is a taste. Warning it is intense
When flat earthers go to bed at night, they read their favourite book ("Everything I don't like is fake, a flat earther child's guide to dismissing evidence ") Then they check their cupboards for any sextants and under their bed for any big numbers. Then they feel safe and secure to drift away and dream of pizzas.
@FTFE - Wasn't there a sequel published about six years ago?
"Everything I Don't Like Is Woke"?
@@Starhawke_Gaming What tome was it ?
That book is now obsolete and has been replaced with a much bigger book - "Everything I don't understand is fake".
Yawn.......
They sure talk a lot while saying nothing of substance. I’d say their favorite book is a thesaurus but then they’d need to understand what the words mean.
Very nice proto. Mind if I mirror this with comments on my channel?
Please do. I look forward to seeing it.
🤔 would 'fear of the sextant' be part of astronavigophobia?
Yet all they have to fear, is sphere itself.
$10,000 awaits the Flerf who can do a simple 3-star fix using Flat Earth principles!
Yeah but a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis will win you $1000000 and it actually has a chance of being doable.
@@wiggles7976 Flerfs keep saying that Cel Nav works on the Flat Earth yet not a single one can compute a simple 3 Star fix...even for $10,000!
@@paidnasashill2150 Never mind a 3 star fix. They can't even show a single line of position (LOP) using only 1 celestial object.
Flat Earthers just need to use a flat map and sextant. Easy. Not rocket science _if the earth was actually flat_ . Been waiting for them to do this for years...no takers.
@Rod - they will need to invent the flat earth map and the flat sextant first 😂
Mitchell doesn't mind lying, does he.
Ahh Mitchel the Aussie Flerf. How an Aussie can be a flerf is beyond me.
By having a negative IQ???
Flatzoid is South African....
What's stopping them... Hmm... Pride? $$$ from their marks? . . . something else that I can't think of?
Stupidity?
@@stringtheorysucksMost probably.
When Mitch posted his video 2 years ago. We all laughed.
Flerfs continue to provide evidence for the globe while using Globe tools. (The Sextant, Google Earth, Google Maps)
... & we're still laughing.
Talking about celestial navigation while at the same time that what and where the sun is is unknowable. In one breath the position and angle to the sun can tell us where we are but at the same time saying it isn’t real.
celestial navigation requires balls, flerf dont have them.
What they fear is losing their phoney baloney income. Liars and grifters all.
Celestial Navigation.
The "kryptonite" of flat Earther's 😂
YAY Mitchell....
2023 Year of the No Mitchell
Of course. He still hasn't done the task Mr. Sensible PAID him to do....
Hi Thad, great video! You stuck a knife in FE and walked around it.😂
Maybe their moms don't let them use a compass (it's pointy, so it could be dangerous).
I'm pretty certain that the 'lack of a FE model' will more than likely figure at the top of their excuses; passionately believing that there is no model and nobody knowing what the model could even begin to look like will no doubt create their counter-argument.
As for Oakley, I'm certain he will do one of 3 things:
1. Shouty-shouty-we've-debunked-that, shouty-shouty-violation-of-blah-blah, shouty-shouty-coriolis-perspective-disequilibrium
2. Will completely ignore it, never speak of it, and ban anyone who mentions it
3. Insult the cr*p out of this video before it gets to the juicy bits and verbally abuse everyone who cites 'a sextant' or 'dip angle'
Or maybe it'll be all 3, either way it should be "interesting".
It never occurs to them that with the military, the shipping companies and the airlines all navigating around the world every day, these people must have a model if earth is flat. Why are they hiding it from flat earthers?
@@profphilbell2075 It does occur to them though: the military (world army), the world's governments, NASA, Google, all religions, all pilots ... they're all in on it. What doesn't occur to them is that it doesn't leave a lot of room for 'everyone else', unless you consider Dubay's theory of compartmentalization - only the top-jobs 'know' about it, and they're all Freemasons anyway.
@@profphilbell2075 Because that model just happen to describe a slowly rotating oblate spheroid orbiting the Sun once a year.
Coriolis Perspective Disequilibrium sounds like a great band name.
All the lot of them did was to chant a lie like it was the truth and claim victory. In geometry a curved adjacent it technobabble nonsense.
Another great video, sir! 😁💚
I seem to recall, one flerf even thought that it was impossible to measure elevation angles greater than 60 degrees, because 'sextant' is derived from 'one sixth of a circle which we all know is 60 degrees.'
As a separate note, I can't take 'noon sights' on my back porch this time of year because I use an artificial horizon and the sun really is 'too high'. But I'm sure no flerf will ever figure out why that's the case. (my latitude is 45 19' 5" N)
Fear the sphere & just chant it flat, bc that really works. 🤪 Poor Mitch, not a peep out of his mouth for like an entire year after winning TopLeft & then out of nowhere an infantile outburst about how Pontchartrain is another black swan. Relapse.
He does a great job with Pontchartrain of showing how far off the flat earth is from reality. Lake Pontchartrain has tides of ±0.3 meters (1 foot) and maximum recorded wave heights of less than 3 meters (10 feet). The photo he uses is taken from 10.3 meters (33 feet) so it is physically impossible for the water of the lake to block line of sight to the other shore on a flat earth which means the flat earth horizon should be at least to the other shore about 38 kilometers (24 miles) away. He uses Walter Bislin's Advanced Earth Curve Calculator, without refraction I might add, to determine the distance to the horizon is supposed to be 11 460 meters but it actually is 11 754 meters. That means the globe calculator is off by about 300 meters (without refraction) but the flat earth math would be off by about 27 000 meters or 2 orders of magnitude greater.
This is why flat earthers refuse to have a model, because if they are smart enough to make one they soon realize it is less accurate than the globe.
@@Tsudico Yup, just ignore refraction, an oldie but goody. The zeroth Law of flerf'n: Whatever it may be, just deny it when absolutely crucial & demand it when entirely irrelevant. Flerspective is another good example. Often they just deny reality itself bc reasonS. Such ignorance alone is mostly only sad but having such arrogance regarding it, is NOT OK, not in the least. On the other hand, I'm OK with them changing nothing & remaining unemployable bc who else will keep our toilets shiney & flip our burgers for chump change ?
if the world indeed was flat, making a correct map would be as easy as laying out an floorplan for a house. everything would be precise, areas, distances and angles.
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.
Hell, if the Earth were flat we wouldn't have latitude and longitude coordinate system at all. A coordinate system based on degrees of circles only makes sense on a globe.
True. On a flat circular map, 'degrees of longitude' and 'miles from the pole' would make much more sense.
@@mikefochtman7164 exactly just like finding your position by radar using bearing and distance from a known point of land.
Even if the earth was shaped like the azimuthal equidistant maps, I still think most maps would employ equal area grid squares.
@@cuross01 if the Earth were a space pizza cartographers would use a Cartesian coordinate system I think and be done with it.
The ability to do and understand math is what is keeping flerfs from doing this.
Wonder how they know they the right change, when shopping...?
I thought this was a video about how to use a sextant. Anyway you discovered that flerfs do nothing and dismiss anything that other people do that doesn't agree with their, er, speculations.
They don't even have a map so fat chance of them actually doing celestial navigation.
They could use a sextant and the method of celestial navigation to create a map...
@@WalterBislin That's a big ask for flat earthers to work something out, they cannot even work out flat earth.
That’s gonna be good, let’s see to what extent they fear the sextant!
I’ve yet to see how they justify how the co-altitude is equal to angular distance ion flat earth. If anyone could direct me to an explanation I’d love to see it.
this is awesome, well done
The only thing they fear is sphere itself.
Great work sir. Left Lane approved this message.
Beautifully done Sir. Have one for the algorithm 👍
Sextant never fails to make me laugh. Not because of it having "sex" in it but because of the scene from Ed, Edd, n Eddy where *they* laugh because it has "sex" in it
Flerfs fear math!
They prefer meth..
I have a question about your sightings at 3:45 for which I calculated a fix. I understand the concept of index error but I don't know the convention. I just solved celestial navigation as a linear algebra math problem and I don't know what Ha, Hs, etc. stand for. I do like the idea of a mathematically perfect fix from given sightings. Anyway, my understanding of the index error is that "on the arc" means that the sextant falsely slightly increases your measured angle, and "off the arc" means that the sextant falsely slightly decreases your measured angle. According to what I googled, if the error is on the arc, subtract a positive angle to correct your measurement, and if the error is off the arc, add a positive angle to correct your measurement.
After correcting for refraction, the horizon dip angle, and adding the -1.6', I get for example, a true elevation angle of Alphard of 36.21125798deg.
I'm going to assume (edit, this appears wrong) that the -1.6' needs to be added as a correction, so I get a location fix of:
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
Decimal degrees: -34.0123287 decimal degrees: -92.32776893
just degrees -34 just degrees -92
just arcminutes 0 just arcminutes -19
just arcseconds -44.38332269 just arcseconds -39.96813754
EDIT: I found that adding 1.6' as the correction for index error gets closer to your actual fix, so is that what is supposed to be done? When I add 1.6' for the index error correction, I get
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
Decimal degrees: -33.9546878 decimal degrees: -92.29401316
just degrees -33 just degrees -92
just arcminutes -57 just arcminutes -17
just arcseconds -16.87607641 just arcseconds -38.44738173
Yes, the convention that a positive index error is 'on the arc' and negative means it is 'off the arc'... so you need to do the opposite of the sign to reverse the error. So you did exactly right to add the 1.6 to cancel out the -1.6 error. 👍
@@protothad837 Thank you, I was doing the correction wrong up until now since I didn't have any good examples to learn from. This example cleared it up for me.
Flat earth lies
Very nice!
@protothad837 A current counterargument by flerfs against the fact that 60 nm/° only works on the globe is that even celestial navigation resources tell you to use stars between 20°-70°, where the 60 nm/° relationship can be observed, but outside this range, there are many corrections to be made.
Based on my research, sightings near the horizon are unreliable because of refraction. And sightings near the zenith need corrections related to the instrument itself.
The refraction part I get. Can you go over why the reasons for corrections to angles near the zenith wouldn't also apply to angles in the range 20-70°?
If one could use a theodolite instead of a sextant, would those corrections still apply?
Thanks
There are two reasons why angles closer to the zenith are not idea. One is simply that the angle of the index mirror gives less visible area to work with, which makes sights more challenging. The other is that you are dealing with a much smaller circle of equal altitude, which means more error in your lines of position since the tangents will diverge from the circle more quickly.
so your the one that gets the location and draws it on a globe, i saw that video ages ago but i couldnt remember where or who it was by, but another good video
Didn’t get past 53 seconds due to an observable lack of sincerity coupled with an abundance of pride … 🤷🏻♀️
Nevertheless, Much Love & Godspeed 🙏🏻♥️✝️♥️🙏🏻
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.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
3:43 If I did my calculations right, I'm getting 33°57.1′S 32°11.0′W, and 33°57.1′S 92°20.8′W by assuming GMT-4 instead.
' 32° 11.0' W ' ?
You meant 92° 11.0' W surely.
I reduced the Procyon sight using Ho249 Vol.2 and my intercept was 5.2 nautical miles away.
I used Thad's solution as my DR and my AP was 34°S and 92° 22'W.
I calculated Ho to be 44° 47.8'
Hc is 44° 53'
@@marcg1686 My message had two fixes, one assuming the times are in GMT as shown in the video and one with GMT-4 which resulted in the closest fix to the coordinates shown in the video.
@@-ion Then your first reduction was incorrect. I reduced the Procyon sight a second time using Ho249 Vol.1 (using the LHA ♈) and the result was almost identical to my first attempt.
can't get a 90 degree angle off of a curved baseline
the line from your eyes to the GROUND POSITION is straight -- no straight lines on a sphere
Very funny. Your sight line is not to the Ground Position... it's to a point on the horizon used to indirectly establish vertical and the co-altitude angle. And like you say, it is from your EYE... which you might notice is ABOVE the surface... exposing your entire 'curved baseline' argument as a straw man. The surface is never a line in our angle.
I would be more than happy to teach you how the process really works, but I expect you have no more interest in real dialog than your buddies over on 24/7 Flat Earth Discord that you practically begged me to talk to. What happened to the actual flat earth navigators you claimed hung out there? 🤣
@@protothad837 "What happened to the actual flat earth navigators ....
They can't plot their way out of mommie's basement.
So celestial navigation can't work at sea because waves aren't flat? 🤦♂️
Globe confirmed 🌎💯
Propaganda channel.
Well, if it's propaganda, at least it's backed by evidence and real world experience.🤷♀
Earth's still flat no matter how much you try and make it into a ball. Even pilots are coming out and calling this reality.
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.
I've sailed to the USA (from europe) and invited a flat earther on a trip back home. He accepted but on the day of departure I got a phone call (also impossible on a flat earth) that his son had an accident (how unfortunate).
Maybe a nice sea journey would do him good...?
@@Lassisvulgaris I know right, but im kinda assuming it was a bs excuse (certainly hope so) in order not to be proven wrong. Which usually happens when flat earthers make it over the horizon and back.