Celestial Navigation: A Response to Tenth Man
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 дек 2022
- I recently commented that I had never seen Tenth Man do any actual celestial navigation. He responded by requesting I address his citations related to the topic. While reading citations is not at all the same as actually demonstrating celestial navigation, I decided to oblige him. In this video I address the sources he cites from, and as a bonus I even demonstrate taking real sextant sights and using a globe to do a position fix. Enjoy.
Excellent video and I loved the analogy in your conclusion. They won't touch a sextant and try to make a real observation with it. That would just further prove their general incompetence.
Ha ha ha, so stupid!
Amazingly well done. Navigation is such a strong indicator of our planets nature yet I remain oblivious to most of its fine details. Thank you for teaching me a little bit!
I used to be in NSW Marine Rescue in Australia and we did all sorts of courses and practical examples. One of the optional ones was Celestial Navigation and we went 20kms offshore and did some practical experiments out of sight of land. It worked perfectly to get us back to base.
Yes, he showed celestial navigation on a flat earth, right before he squared the circle, found the last digit of pi, and gave us the secret to perpetual clean, cheap energy using only duct tape, buttered toast, and a cat. While that may sound impressive, when you realize that he discovered that celestial navigation requires the earth to be flat -- a fact that had been missed by everybody through several centuries actually *using* celestial navigation -- you have to conclude that Tenth Man must be an unparalleled genius, and capable of doing all those in those last few blinks before falling asleep.
What IS the last digit of pi???😲 That would be cool if he had that!
@@jquest99 The last digit is twentyteen. I think that's the only place it's found. 😀
I liked the part where tenth man brokered world peace and in his Nobel Peace Prize speach, humbly said, “It’s morbin’ time.”
@@jquest99 it’s 0, in base pi
@@roop-a-loop wouldn't it be 1 in base pi?🤔
The very first step in celestial navigation is getting the ground position of a star. On a globe earth, it's VERY simple, by looking it up on the celestial almanac based on time. On a flat earth, it's IMPOSSIBLE.
When I pointed this out on Oakley's channel, I got banned pretty quickly.
These guys just obfuscate from this by going on about angle of elevation and how that proves flat earth. No flat earther can honestly admit that they can't perform celestial navigation.
They banned you too 🤣
I admittedly went there to troll them, but the denialism is very real on FED. I showed up with a CAD model of sighting Polaris and another “flat earth” sighting Polaris from the equator with Polaris just sitting on the North Pole. They were very unimpressed.
Nice to see 10thMan hiding behind the "pay me $5000 per hour".
Yes that was hilarious. Is there any better way to signal you are afraid to debate? 😂
$5000 per hour? And yet he waffles for hours for free on Nathan's freak show.
@@protothad837 Did you see my video on their poster child Rob Durham? Search for the title
"Rob Durham, Angle to a Curve, Super easy for Flat Earth AutoCad Genius, At Least He Was In 2015"
or have a look in my videos, it is near the top with a silhouette of Rob as the thumbnail
@@protothad837 link ruclips.net/video/y5YKljmGzsQ/видео.html
@@whereswa11y Thanks, I'll check that out.
Excellent video. Well presented, well researched, well narrated. Always good to see a person who knows what they are doing and can explain it well in action. Well done.
Came from Toonz, subscribed for more incredible content (please) and your spectacular diction!
Awesome.
This completely shits on their celestial navigation claim soo hard. Where will they go to next?
Let's face it, they're flerfs. They won't care about this and they will just continue with their argument as if this didn't happen...
Aside from baseless denial, references to Polynesian sailors that don’t undermine what Thad did here.
Great job. Thank you. It is wonderful to watch someone who has a good understanding of our accumulated knowledge of navigation, show us how easy things are if you just go out and learn!
Nothing sadder (funnier) than a flerf with a fee schedule. Such a sovcit thing to do. Odd this flerf didn’t take up MC Toon’s $10,000 challenge to demonstrate cel nav without referring to a spherical earth.
I countered by saying I would pay him $5000 if he could demonstrate circles of equal altitude working flat. 😂
The conclusion of this video is:
"YOU HAVE TO LIE TO FLERF"
Indeed, and one of the biggest liars out there is @Brian's Logic. On one of the FED debates he said that Eratosthenes used nautical miles. The nautical mile was first proposed some 1600 years after his death.
Really cool presentation - especially that you used the globe itself do demonstrate the point 🤓
I would really love to see some more worked examples on celestial navigation! I’ve never actually seen it done out before this video and I think it was wicked cool. The drawing circles on the globe part was awesome, especially.
Hard to root for people that are deliberately ignorant and obviously biased. Good for you Thad!
Asking them take measurements and do math? I admire your optimism.
Best I've seen. Outstanding content.
Very well done, it's great to see videos by people who are actually working in the field being discussed. You should really post this as a flat Earth debunk video, not just as a response. More people should see it.
He Dosent know what dip correction is dude😂
There are plenty of us Flat Earthers that will be more than happy to assess that sort of video.. if the “debunking FE” claim is made of course. It will be an excellent addition to the extensive and growing playlists of videos that attempt to debunk it… unsuccessfully thus far. Most with intentions to deceive an inquisitive mind.
Get the app!
ruclips.net/p/PLEzivhxtxgbs7wzW1MY3WlKM7rx3H6iDZ
Spoiler alert: He never read the book he claimed as his source, just parroted what another flat earthers said in their youtube channels.
It's worse than that. He actually looks at these sources but purposely rejects anything that contradicts his preconceptions. It is willful confirmation bias to the point of taking statements that don't actually support his claim and bending them to say something they don't... even when the source says the opposite only a few pages or sentences later.
No they don’t read it. They look through it for a keyword or phrase and then stop there.
All they care about is making it look like it agrees with them.
@@protothad837
...That is a key quality of all Oakley's sheeple.
When flerfs fail in DETAIL!
It’s funny to see one of these confused flatties commenting on your video, but not to learn anything, that has been done by cherrypicking various documents. No, this guy is here for trolling.
These years I have watched whatever “arguments” the flerfs have come up with, I notice they just follow the long list of logical fallacies (or translated from Swedish “argumentation errors”) and when their “arguments” fall flat to the ground (well, slightly curved as we all can see the curvature - Brian did actually prove the curvature himself) they go abusive, starts the name-calling and obscene language.
I know nothing about navigation, but a walk to the lake I can clearly see that the Earth is not a sloppy pancake.
Thanks a lot for the excellent demonstration!
Great video! The pedagogic aspect is super! Well done!
Beautifully done video. 👏
You expect an awful lot of flat earthers. Their light bulbs have long since burned out.
I love how the flatties demand you pay them 5000 bucks an hour just to talk about celestial navigation when they have been completely avoiding showing any flat earther using actual celestial navigation applied to a flat earth and somehow working accurately.
Way to go full circle (as opposed to making a circular argument), as well full sphere, with your arguments!
I am rewatching the original, after having seen Blue Marble Science's mirror.
I think it’s important to remember that Brian has no idea what an “angle” actually is - or how you could calculate the angle between two lines from their equations.
If he were able to, then he might understand why those two lines do not need to be straight.
To flerfs, a tangent is just what you go off on when you're trying to avoid answering a question.
@@outputcoupler7819OMG, this is awesome!! SOOOO true though! 😂😂🤣🤣🤣
@Duncan McNeill wait, are you saying my algebraic geometry classes have skipped over teaching me how to calculate angles between non-straight lines?! o.O
@@irrelevant_noob - I don’t know.
As an example question for flerfs - what are the two angles between the lines y=2x and y=x^2 at their points of intersection?
@@duncanmcneill7088 yep, they definitely skipped over such a question... Although TBF it's not a quick approach like "the area under the graph of the function" would be. And it deffo has _way_ too many steps for flerfs to go through, i mean they MAYBE will get the point of intersection, but then the derivatives, the equations for the tangents, the angles before _finally_ getting to the answer, that's not something i would expect from anyone but math majors. :-)
Very good advice, clear and concise.
Good work. Thanks for showing to many how this is done.
Very excellent video, thanks Thad.
Nothing to add that wasn’t already posted.
Excellent work!
So from another sailor fair winds and have a comment for the algorithm .
Thanks Proto Thad. Flat Earth forums are echo chambers in my experience. I got banned from Nathan Thompson's one after asking just 1 question. The site got removed soon after which was most amusing.
It has been well over a year since several flat Earthers took the three triangle diagram that appeared in a sailing magazine some years ago as showing Celestial Navigation uses the flat Earth. They found a few other uses of similar diagrams. I think it was Brian's Logic who tried to redefine Nautical Miles to being Sky Miles. Someone cited a flat Earther claiming the plotting is done against the celestial sphere and then transferred to the flat Earth. I have NEVER seen anyone do a celestial fix for the flat Earth. It might be puzzling for their audience to see them completely ignore the diagrams they have been banging on about for over a year. After all to solve the triangles they need to have measured the height to the stars themselves. I assume by using a physical measure as that is the requirement they demand for anything globe related.
I have used other peoples' three star observations and done a celestial fix using the Nautical Almanac, my own Excel spreadsheet for the calculations, and Google Earth Pro. It was great fun.
As Google Earth Pro is NOT a sphere but is a pretty accurate oblate spheroid, I found I was getting errors of quite a few miles. Eventually I realised my oversight and stopped using the calculated distances. Instead I use the GP and the angle to get a starting point either due South or due North. Using the circle ruler tool with the GP and calculated starting point I can plot a good circle of equal altitude on the oblate spheroid. I for one would be interested in watching someone go through the plotting sheet technique. With Google Earth Pro so available I didn't bother with it.
I have subscribed in the hopes you post a follow up at some point letting us subscribers know what happened.
I'll be making some videos in the future that walks through the entire process, including sight reduction and doing a manual fix on plotting sheets. I'm not doing that to convince any flat earthers mind you... they don't really seem interested in digging into the actual process. I thought my globe demo might be more compelling since it strips the math away in favor of a direct representation of the underlying geometry. It was a method that my sailing instructor used when introducing the topic (though he used a normal globe and a grease pencil... not dry erase). But as you can see from some of the comments on this video, confirmation bias will have its way. 🤷♀
@@protothad837 '... confirmation bias will have its way.'
You're not kidding. People like @Brian's Logic lie to others and deceive themselves 24/7.
They are not just invested in FE, it's consuming them.
Hi Thad, nice to see you uploading content.
Uploading nonsense lol....
@@Mr22brian22 Good morning Brian. What's a guy like you doing in a place like this? Given that you've had your arse handed to you on a flat plate several times this last week, I'd have thought that you would give it a break.
I gave you two tasks to complete.
Have you found the HO-229 tables for a flat earth?
I also gave you a corrected elevation angle and requested that you determine my position. You have failed to do this.
You must do better. Lol.
@@marcg1686 I don’t remember anyone handing me anything my friend, I think you need to read back through our comments and rethink your position fraud ?
@@Mr22brian22 Brian, Have you done any celestial navigation yourself?
@@ericerpelding2348 He should be able to do it fairly easily using the celestial almanac... I mean, unless he's a flat earther, in which case, no.
Very nice video. Happy to see that you published it.
Tiny Captain, how's it hanging? 😉
@@marcg1686 Doing great. Having jetlag from flying back home from Vancouver to the Netherlands. But, for the rest, it is all good. How about you?
@@TinyCaptainSailingTheGlobe Doing OK. I recently purchased an Astra 3B. A lot heavier than my Davis but really beautiful.
@@marcg1686 Nice. I have a C.Plath Navistar Pro myself
@@TinyCaptainSailingTheGlobe Thad has a C&P too. The Davis Mk15 is no comparison but it works reasonably well. My Sun intercepts are usually less than 10 minutes. I like plotting the intercept the most. That's where you produce something useful.
Excellent video. The analogy of "horsepower" referring to horses inside a car's engine is very apt. Flat-earthers make lots of claims which can easily be checked or tested (and nearly always turn out to be wrong) but they are never willing to do any experiments or observations. They just want to cling on to their beliefs, and their feelings of being in that special "we know a secret" club.
PS - I have the same sextant! Not as beautifully engineered and precise as others I've used, but it does the job.
Yes, the Davis MK15 is not a bad sextant for the money, and definitely lighter and easier to travel with than my old Cassens & Plath.
Looking forward to them explain the Volvo Ocean Race 2023, especially the leg from Cape Town to Brazil. Traveling east they will pass south of Australia.
They didn't do real well with the Vendée Globe.
Don't hold your breath for the Volvo Ocean Race.
They will just claim it’s fake. They already do with the Antarctica race.
You're just not giving the flat earthers any chance at all. You're coming on too strong. Try to give them some leeway. Something to grasp on to.
"Something to grasp on to."
You mean like straw??
They do love a strawman.
Great video, glad I found it
A brilliant bit of video. Love it all.
Oh and when they mention Rob Durham next, mention that Rob knows exactly how to measure an angle from the surface of a globe.
I will link my video in another comment below this one.
or
Search for the title
"Rob Durham, Angle to a Curve, Super easy for Flat Earth AutoCad Genius, At Least He Was In 2015"
or have a look in my videos, it is near the top with a silhouette of Rob as the thumbnail
ruclips.net/video/y5YKljmGzsQ/видео.html Rob Durham
Was your link in a _reply_ here by any chance? Because if so, it seems yt's auto-mod has hidden it for the rest of us. :-
@@irrelevant_noob Search for the title
"Rob Durham, Angle to a Curve, Super easy for Flat Earth AutoCad Genius, At Least He Was In 2015"
or have a look in my videos, it is near the top with a silhouette of Rob as the thumbnail
I more or less remember Mazda adverts that showed midgeds/gnomes/small people like creatures in the engine. So Nu-Uh, not horses…
Time to run away now.
Hi Thad, I threw caution to the four winds last night and immersed myself in Quantum Eraser's live chat. The usual flerf derp.
When I suggested that they crowd fund a sextant, Arwijn stated that 10th Man has several.
Do you know if this is true?
I've heard him claim that he bought one as well as a bunch of navigation books but I've still seen no evidence it is true or if he's ever used it if owns one.
@@protothad837 If he owns one at all it is for nothing more then for token credibility. He can wave it around and pretend he knows how to use it but he’s never bothered to actually do any work with it.
Frankly, 10th man is just playing the part of an navigation ‘expert’ for NO’s little echo chamber. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
@@protothad837 He has seemingly visited the YT channel Practical Navigator.
ruclips.net/video/k0oz6RhTQ-4/видео.html
Total annihilation. Beautiful!
Excellent, i loved the horsepower analogy, it's dead-on
Well done Sir!
I love this video... couldn't be more referential.
Awesome video! Are ypu planning to upload more?
Yes. This video actually cribbed some content from a video l was already working on based on my recent seminar. I've got a bunch of ideas for future videos. 😀
Nice stuff. I had no idea you have a channel
Very nice video.
Subscribed.. im really interested in your walk through, you should show your software, too!
I hope to get a secure web server set up during the holiday break. I'll release another video when I do.
To all flat earthers...please get yourself any vessel suitable for offshore travel. Once you leave the shore you will notice the land disappearing from the shoreline upwards and approaching vessels from the horizon appearing from their masts or highest points downwards to their hull lines. Wonder why this happens and what do your observations tell you? Also where is your FE map or model with a scale that can be verified? Get on with the job of producing one. Can it predict future tides for the next 20 odd years? lol
Awesome video!👍
22 minutes of the First Law of Flerf, delicious. lol great work!
"Elevation Angle measurements end the deate since it can never be achieved from a curved baseline"
This is an additional claim that 10th Man makes and is misleading.
Actually, it's at least two: "elevation angle measurements can never be achieved from a curved baseline", and "elevation angle measurements end the debate". Both of them are false, but we can safely assume they're all typos since his second sentence said he was finished making claims, right?
Of course, going back the first sentence is only there to excuse cherry picking definitions, and the second is there to cherry pick an incomplete definition of the word angle.
There are obvious issues, like not indicating which of the two angles in the described figure, and subtler, like claiming the lines had to be straight. That latter is there in the definition purely to avoid ambiguity; only the direction matters, so for curved lines their direction at the vertex is used. Not even the vertex is required for straight lines; should they happen to not meet, they can simply be translated to do so.
An angle itself is just some number of revolutions, with rays from a shared vertex being a graphic way to show it.
People like this are the reason there's a legal concept of "reasonable person".
I got my own sextant a year ago but havent used it yet. I'd be very interested in a video on sight/side reduction.
I've got that one planned. Might take a little while since I have some very specific graphics I want to make for it. Nice thing is I can then reuse those graphics for an advanced cel nav seminar I will teach later this year.
Excellent use of the protractor on a globe to show how the 3 sights give you only one location and I loved your closing analogy.
One other little problem for the flat earthers to resolve is how you would be able to determine your location on a flat earth. This is particularly true if they accept light coming in is parallel due to the great distance to the celestial body. The issue they would then have is that from a flat surface ALL locations would observe the same altitude of the body and so all would give the same position. The fact is you are only able to determine you location BECAUSE you are on a spherical object meaning the altitude of the observation differs precisely due to that infamous dip in the earth’s surface they so love to quote (and usually misquote as a parabola!)
"This is particularly true if they accept light coming in is parallel due to the great distance to the celestial body. " Most of them have seen that if there is a very great distance, then there is a problem for flattism.
Hi @@edby263. Ans to they then get into to a local sun conclusion, not to mention the giant projector ... no doubt run by NASA ... that projects the night sky onto the inside of the dome. Clearly NASA and the projector has existed thousands of years! 😂 It never ceases to amaze me the incredible things people then convince themselves ... and proudly announce to the world via YT
Add me to the list of people you taught Cel Nav
He's not called "10th man" for no reasons...
He's got the 10th of the intelligence as everybody else...
And i'm being polite here...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Jeeezz! I thought the surveyors were rough! Now I gotta crash course CN to grasp any significance pertaining to these FE scenarios...
Arrgghhhhhh......
This popped up in sidebar. Time to sweep out more cobwebs. Fun stuff, but I'll be behind for awhile lol
Cheers!
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)
The flerf butthurt is GREAT in the comments!
😁😁😁😁😁😁
Yeah, I think I broke Brian's Logic with this one. He has been spiraling in the comments, unable to deal with his flat earth argument imploding.
Can any flat earther please tell me where the NASA shill pay office is located? I don't seem to be getting paid as an acting Australian and NASA shill... dating back to my fictional arrival in 1965. It's a lot of money, apparently, and I would like to get it sorted so I can buy a trip to the ice wall. We're allowed flatties not you....
Wolfie can sort it out for you.
Or maybe he's getting your cut.
;-)
According to Mitchell from Australia. The sextant proves that the earth is flat.
And yet , sailors have been using the sextant to help solve where they are.
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.
Thad, at 15:12 you write Saturn SHA: 38° 9.2'.
I understand that figure is Saturn GHA = 47° 51.7' minus Aries GHA = 9° 42.5' (all of this at 00:00:00 GMT).
It had me confused at first but I guess that SHA is coming from your own almanac that you generated from software, (you talked about in another tread started by boomerantics9586).
Does your almanac generate planets positions like this?
Yes I think I did use an app for those values, and I didn't show every step in the calculations just to keep the video moving along.
I show more of the manual steps in my previous video, and I plan to describe it in better detail in a future video.
Dude starts a youtube channel just because some flerf idiots challenged him on a discord server.
Proto based.
I had some time to kill on a long train ride. Maybe I should get a different hobby. 😅
@@protothad837 ,
IDK... While I agree it's hard to do Celestial navigation on a train, but being into cel nav, is a pretty neat hobby.
@@aralornwolf3140 Well, I was actually referring to the hobby of debating flat earthers... but cel nav on a train sounds like an interesting challenge. 😆
While talking about angles, how about these impossible angles on flat earth: I live in Australia, about 1000 km southern than the Tropic of Capricorn, yet these days the sun rises 30⁰ southern than due east, and sets 29⁰ southern than due west… Game over for flat earth!! I’m sure that flerfs will come up with an even more ridiculous argument, like: Australia doesn’t exist, and we’re all (unpaid) actors!! 😂 Merry Christmas everyone!!
We can see waaaayyyyy too far for an oblate spheroid some 25k miles in circumference so how about you deal with that.
@@hoosierflatty6435 The simple answer is refraction and taking the eye elevation into account. In the first version of Zetetic Astronomy by Parallax (aka Samuel Rowbotham) there is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica on the derivation of the adjustment formula = 8.008 inches times the square of the tangential distance in Miles. That quote includes a warning about refraction and how variable it can be especially over water. What a pity Samuel left out that most excellent quote from his later and bigger version.
@@hoosierflatty6435 Can "we" though? Or does that only happen on very rare occasions with extreme atmospheric conditions?
Why can't "we see way too far" all the time? Why can't I see Polaris from Australia? ( hint : there's a planet in the way).
@@hoosierflatty6435 Yeah, refraction is a thing… We can even calculate how much further than the geometric horizon we can see given the atmospheric conditions. The southern hemisphere is simply a game over for flat earth… And by the way, you didn’t address the fact that the sun should rise and set over Antarctica to be seen 30º southern than due east/west from where I live! You only parrot whatever you’ve heard! Do your own research! I did mine…
This was something I was pointing out over a year ago. No response from the flatwits.
Well done…just missed the reference to The Law of Stupidity. Arguing with a stupid is impossible. Earth flatter are the apex of stupids
You don't have to go very far into calculus to find that you can be perpendicular to a curved line at a point. Being perpendicular to the tangent at that point.
I stumbled onto this this video thinking it must be a joke of some kind. I suppose it is to the extent that anyone could be so - how shall I say it? - misguided to assert that the Earth is flat. As an aside, I assumed that I was the only guy left on this very spherical planet to still purchase a nautical almanac every year and carry a sextant and sight reduction tables.
If you limit yourself to sun and star shots only, you could get by with purchasing the commercial edition every other year.
I've actually taken to generating my own almanac using software or just downloading a free PDF. I've never seen it diverge from official almanacs by more than 0.1 arc minute.
@@protothad837 If you have the software, that's great. I also download the pages that I need.
I have the 2021 commercial edition.
To use it in 2022 for the Sun you have to subtract 5 hours and 48 seconds from the time of the shot and add 87° to GHA.
For the stars, use the same date and time as the observation and subtract 15.1' from the GHA.
You can't use the above mentioned corrections for the Moon and the planets.
Bump, set, SPIKE! Destroyed, again...
I brought them a CAD model sighting Polaris on a globe from 20 degrees, and another ridiculous flat earth model with Polaris sitting on the North Pole and viewed from the equator.
I’m no longer welcome at FED 🤣
I just heard a flerf today make these silly arguments. He even cited Jacoby. I wonder if he got it from Tenth Man.
I'm sorry. I think all you guys are in on an elaborate troll. No way people actually believe the earth is flat.
Oh trust me. People do. They really really do. Never underestimate a humans capability of being stupid
Is it really ZERO fe that can even accurately describe the process?? I thought McToon's challenge was tough, but fun use flat earth maths. Roohif's was way easier just saying 'get a fix' regardless of earth shape.
My new challenge is to see if a single person can describe it. After a year of talking about it, none of them can and it amuses me greatly.
I'm planning to release a new challenge eventually, probably in collaboration with MCToon, where they just need to come up with a map that they can draw their circles of equal altitude on and have them intersect correctly. Should be easy... right? 😉
I wonder where humanity would be if flerfers were the authority in navigation??? And general science ???
I wonder if anything would actually work as intended not thinking of naviation alone but things like engines, computers. I mean if flerfers are not able to pursue references adequately they would miss all the points that in combination leads to new inventions.
I do not say that current authorities in science are flawless, but that are in deed able to take advantage of as many sources as possible to maximize the outcome of their efforts and endevours.
At first, I thought flat Earthers were hilarious. Then, I thought it was actually kind of sad. Now, they're actually kind of frightening. More and more ignorant people are buying into this dross and no amount of teaching/talking/debating/arguing can change their erroneous views. Leading to " *what if* " question like yours... What if they're your child's science teacher? Math? Geography? ...
It may be a long shot, but the increase of conspirators and flatters could (emphasising: could) be correlated to the increased lead levels in blood. It could be interesting to analyse if this is the case to thereby explaing this apparent decrease in IQ. I think I saw an article that states that the IQ level has generally declined 2 to 3 points in the population. Not a good situation, but then we could have an explanation. If the average IQ declination is 2 to 3, then there can easily be some groups that has dropped even more, say 10 or even 20 IQ points. Just a thought, though unpleasent.
Good stuff, but how have you been in the field this long without picking up the correct pronunciation of ZENITH? Long E!
im sure this man cant find the Northern star and get out of the hood .. :D ha ha ha !!
On a different note. Do you think its possible for the lunar lander to go thru re- entry the way that thing was built? The lack of aero dynamics and lack of a heat shield. I mean they said it was 3mm thick and could almost poke their finger thru it. You can't even build a plane like that and expect it to stay together. Forget about flying 18000mph. Would love to hear your opinion.
No, it would be impossible for the lunar lander to survive reentry... it was not built for it. It docked with the Command Service Module in lunar orbit, the astronauts moved to the CSM, jettisoned the lander, and returned and reentered in the CSM... not the lander. This is well established and documented history.
@@protothad837 thank you. Never looked into that. Could that thing survive in a vacuum? Would love to see that in a vacuum chamber. I mean, they admit the walls were 3mm thick and could practically poke their finger thru it.
@@levelhorizons397 Actually, I think you will find that 3mm of aluminum is actually pretty tough. That is actually thicker than on commercial Boeing airliners like the 747, and they have to withstand the stresses of traveling at high speed in often turbulent weather.
@@protothad837 aluminum and aluminum foil are two different things🤣
@@levelhorizons397
NASA did test all Apollo spacecraft in a vacuum chamber.
From " 50 Years Ago: Thermo-Vacuum Testing Certifies Critical Lunar Hardware"
"In the late spring of 1968, NASA conducted two critical tests at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) in Houston to certify components of the Apollo spacecraft for human space flight. These thermo-vacuum tests, conducted in the Space Environment Simulation Laboratory (SESL), verified the space-worthiness of the Command and Service Module (CSM) and the Lunar Module (LM). Successful completion of both tests were required before the first manned flight of each vehicle - Apollo 7 in the case of the CSM and (at the time) Apollo 8 for the LM.
Completed in 1965, the SESL houses two chambers for thermo-vacuum testing. Chamber A is the larger of the two chambers and tested the CSM in June 1968. Chamber B is a 35-foot diameter stainless steel vessel with an overall height of 43 feet, and can accommodate a vehicle 13 feet in diameter and 27 feet in length. It was the site of thermo-vacuum tests of the LM, using Lunar Module Test Article (LTA) 8 in May 1968. Although the chambers tested spacecraft before the Apollo fire in January 1967, the LTA-8 test was the first conducted under safety criteria revised as a result of the accident."
What is up with the smug “Professor Dave” cadence? Please answer each as I have a follow up.
1- In our official latitude lines based on elevation angles to Polaris from the North Pole to the equator are those geometric or do they allow “refraction” considerations? Geometric / Refraction accounted for
2- Can you do celestial navigation with a sextant from a submarine? YES/NO
3- What is the dip correction at 0 elevation? You seem to insinuate only on a globe would a correction from eye level to surface level be needed as if on a flat earth we would all squirm on the ground making surface level = eye level.
4- On Nautical charts are nautical Miles MEASURED as straight lines with dividers based on the Nautical Chart legend? YES/NO
5- On Earth, is level straight or perpendicular tangents around the center of a sphere? STRAIGHT/PERPENDICULAR
"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.
Dude you are wasting your time. You guys are arguing if Russell’s teapot exists. You realize that narrative is stronger then any sensory experience right? Lookit this is not a matter of fact it is dependent on your scale, you are taking in the full benefit of our modern ability to experience celestial bodies in their whole, you are an ant who is able to think like an elephant, he is still in the ant perspective and considering you both get to your destination the same, eventually it doesn’t matter. You need to deal with your frustration with them insisting their scale is the only reality.
As a thought experiment: if you were the size of an atom this whole discussion would seem weird to you - you would say the earth is not round or flat it is mostly nothing. Just trying to say this discussion is recreational and in that sense go at it, but you sound like you are taking it seriously.
Oh, I'm not taking this too seriously. I was called out on a discord debate server, told I had to respond to this guys 'citations' or be banned... so I obliged. It was all just for fun really.
@@protothad837 gotcha. Ok sorry :)
"You both get to your destination the same" - not if you use a flat earth to navigate.
@@-ion you think these guys are pilots? The only navigation they’re doing is on waze/maps and they both are 2d
Why do you call a right angle triangle a right triangle. It’s like you are saying this is the correct triangle. It just sounds weird.
Probably because that’s what most people call it unless they are being pedantic.
@@KarlEchtermeyer most people in your country but in my country I have never heard a single person say right triangle and I am 64 . So that is why I think it sounds weird. I am not being pedantic you are being lazy.
@@keithkearns93 you asked for the reason. Where he is from, that is entirely the norm. It’s not about being lazy if that’s simply what it’s called. They are synonyms, but in English “right triangle” is *by far* the more common expression, by a factor of more than 10. So you got an answer for why he said it. Insisting on “right-angle triangle” is being pedantic given that it nowhere near as common. Or perhaps I should say you and I are both being lazy as neither of us using “orthogonal triangle” because to me “right-angle triangle” could sound like it’s the only type of triangle with the proper angle.
@@KarlEchtermeyer please post your survey results.
@@keithkearns93 Google has over 4 million hits for “right triangle” and 350,000 for “right-angle triangle”. Unless you have reason to believe that language on the internet differs hugely from everything else, that’s as convincing evidence as it gets.
There's no dip of the horizon,, Only dip correction to the sea level, from the observer height siding the elevation angle.
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.
Common sense……
Where does reality match flat Earth and does NOT match the globe?
Water would spin off? Not when the centrifugal throw outwards is jut 0.03 m/s/s at the Equator compared with the pull down of 9.8 m/s/s. The throw on a 1 foot diameter foam ball spinning with a tangential velocity of about 7 mph is >64 m/s/s. Not that you needed to spin it that fast as the foam ball doesn't have any pull towards it at all apart from water's own surface tension.
Constellations = Stars that we can see at night are in the same galaxy so going around roughly together. It takes 240 MILLION years to go round the galaxy once.
"Earth is a lot larger than we've been told"? Did you check that yourself or is this something you were told? After all I am told by flat Earthers that ordinary people are not allowed onto Antarctica.
FYI I have personally checked. My favourite check is: I live far enough North to be confident the Sun does go around the North pole every 24 hours. At 6 hours after being due South of me at local Solar noon, the Sun must be half way around to being due North of me. As I live more than 2000 miles South of the North pole that should put it well North of due West at that time. On the Equinox at that time the Sun should be about due West if the Earth is a globe. When I checked it was due West.
I'll take empirical evidence over common sense any day.
@Billman, Cherry picking, taking out of context, intellectual dishonesty, ignoring the experts, lying, disgusting displays of non-expert arrogance. Never actually having used a Sextant and Celestial Navigation, but claiming to be masters.
...Yes, Jokely and his whole crew 'LACK' common sense.
Timestamp 19:02 you have several horizons. Which one is geometric (earth curve) for your tangent? 😆 🤣 😂
Oh goody, you've decided to boost the metrics on this video too! To answer your question... a tangent is a line touching a curve at one point without crossing it. Look closely at the diagram. Of the two lines that include 'horizon' in their name, which one is touching the curved surface? Let me know if you need any more hints. 😀
@@protothad837 In your diagram there, a person with a sextant is looking through it at the horizon. That horizontal line you labeled celestial horizon never reaches the surface of the earth. Mr. Magoo could see this problem. 😆 🤣 😂. We never see a geometric horizon (earth curve). You're just assuming a tangent.
@@TB-xx8vj We are not looking at the celestial horizon... we are looking at the visible horizon (your clue should have been the word 'visible'). Applying the dip correction get's us the angle to the celestial horizon (just a fancy name for horizontal). Are you sure you should be commenting on things you clearly don't understand? I mean... I appreciate the interest and boost to the video metrics, but your time might be better spent actually learning how this stuff works before commenting. 🤷♀
@Proto Thad It's redundant to say the "visible" visible line where the sky meets the surface. And since the black swan, standard refraction (7/6 of the radius) has been claimed to curve line of sight preventing a geometric horizon (earth curve) from ever being seen or measured. So, there is no spherical geometry. Elevation angles can not be measured with a curved line of sight.
@@TB-xx8vj "Elevation angles can not be measured with a curved line of sight."
Hey D1ckhead, can you navigate?
Yes or no.
Bonus question: What's the highest level of science education you have?
Now go play in the traffic.
Why are you using a toy globe at home to navigate, but on the boat you have a sextant?
You dont seem to be using the globe to navigate with all of a sudden.
Can you show us how to navigate successfully based on a flat earth?
We use the globe to demonstrate the underlying geometry when teaching. As I point out in the video, I can size the drafting compass directly to the co-altitude without any messy math only because the globe is reproducing the real world geometry that the sextant angles were obtained from. This is why that 'toy' produces correct coordinates, but no flat earther can show it working on a flat world map. Of course you are welcome to step up and prove me wrong with your own demonstration. Will you be the first ever flat earther to show cel nav working flat? 🍿
@@protothad837 don't bother, he posted BS on wolfies channel, got called on it and ran
@@Alysm-Aviation
By measuring an elevation angle to a star and a flat line to the GP
You cant measure an elevation angle from a curved adjacent
📐 The baseline of a right triangle is FLAT.
@@protothad837
How do you like being schooled by a FEr?
Look at the un logo, bout as close as it comes, that ice shelf goes all the way around us, the inner most circle , one of three circles, like admiral Byrde said……
The UN logo uses a Asimuthal Equidistant "projection" map. Only flat earthers claim this is a flat earth map. Unless they get challenged on how in accurate it (like Australia appearing 3 times its actual size), then they claim they have no actual map and don't really need one.
BTW, Admiral Byrde never claimed that the Earth was flat or that this wrapped around the earth, he only said that the antarctic continent had an area of land the size of the US mainland, which it does.
Why are there NO flerfs that has seen, taken a photo, taken a Video or Touched the non existing wall/dome
People live at the Antarctica and not 1 has EVER seen the Wall/Dome.
If your quick you can book a seat on a plane that is going to the Antarctica, Leaves Adelaide 8 Feb 2023
More than 300 people have skied to the South Pole.
Go and find it then. Nobody is stopping you
The Admiral said no such thing.
How long is this "horizontal plane" that you claim is "tangent to the earth?"
How long is the line in an angle? Answer that, and you have your answer.
@Proto Thad so you disagree with all your buddies and concede that we can establish a horizontal line between two points (and beyond) in reality. Excellent. Enjoy your day.
What relevance does this have to the problem at hand, i.e. celestial navigation, 'buddy'? No length measurements involved but you know that don't you and are just being a dick.
@@DrEMichaelJonesThanks for demonstrating that you don’t understand what tangent means.
Excellent. Enjoy your day.
@Robert Lafleur tell us more about "horizontal tangents," little buddy. In your paracosm can you construct a rectangular building with horizontal ceilings and floors? :D
So you assume a globe, but use an imaginary tangent at 90 degrees from the zenith of both the observer and the GP.
Forget all the cartoons in the books , the basic premise is that you need a horizontal plane to make your elevation angle. Thousands of years of navigation using a presumed flat plane with a celestial sphere, which modern almanacs arrive their information from.
As for the black swan, refraction does not account for the fact that the horizon is behind the 2 rigs, that defeats 7/6R and all other refractive hypotheses.
Now you named FED so at any time you can join and debate.....share your knowledge
An angle of elevation is not a triangle....it's a vertex of observation
Plus, you never in navigation plot your angles of altitude on a globe,? You do it on a plotted map in 2 D.
You are a liar
You said, "Now you named FED so at any time you can join and debate.....share your knowledge." Actually, no I can't, because Divergent Droid banned me from the server. This after Nathan stopped any discussion of this video on his channel. Seems a lot like they are afraid to address this. 🤔
But I appreciate you coming here to share your feedback. Let's take a look at your claims. First, you said I "use an imaginary tangent at 90 degrees from the zenith of both the observer and the GP"... But that is definitely NOT what I am doing. The GP is NOT on the 90 horizontal tangent that I use at my own zenith... that idea is a flat earth fallacy. That horizontal is only used to indirectly find the zenith and thus the co-altitude angle. The GP comes entirely from the nautical almanac and is not on any line of our angle. Look at my diagram at about 19:00 into the video to see what I mean.
You also say, "Forget all the cartoons in the books , the basic premise is that you need a horizontal plane to make your elevation angle"... Yes, I agree at some point you have move past just diagrams and citations to actually DOING celestial navigation, which is why this video includes an actual DEMONSTRATION that shows the underlying geometry. It makes the point that the horizontal plane is NOT the surface of the the earth.
You also say, "using a presumed flat plane with a celestial sphere, which modern almanacs arrive their information from."... Almanacs presume a celestial sphere surrounding a GLOBE EARTH, with a one to one mapping between the right ascension / declination celestial coordinate system and the latitude / longitude globe coordinate system. The positions and movement over time of Ground Positions in the almanac trace out a globe shape... not a flat plane. I'll be making a future video about that.
You claim that, "As for the black swan, refraction does not account for the fact that the horizon is behind the 2 rigs". Refraction does in fact account for it perfectly. Flat earthers just hand wave and pretend it doesn't without every discussing the refractive index and how much it can effects what you see. I'll probably dedicate a future video to this as well.
Round does not mean a sphere i have a flat £2 pound coin thats round😂
Is that seriously your only take-away from an entire video that - in great depth - completely dismantles everything your FED masters tell you about celestial navigation?
@@RoundEarthObserver yeah, cos i remember proto comming on FED and failing miserably, and presenting right angled triangles, this video dissmantles nothing😂
@@RoundEarthObserver oh shit just realised how devestating my comment is to your channel name😂🤡 Id change that dumbo😂😂😂😂
@@MichaelKhan1979 Hmm... That doesn't seem likely. There weren't any in this video and the sources 10th Man uses shows nothing but a spherical Earth.
@@doofismannfred4778 go check out FED all shows are recorded, just because you dont think its likely dosnt mean he didnt come presenting right angled triangles and made a complete bolloks of his presentation and you need to read beyond the pictures, brother.
You dont know what dip correction is 😂😂😂 oh dear
Wonderful, explain it to us.
Oh really? Strange that I've successfully applied dip correction hundreds of times while actually sailing and navigating then. Please educate us. What do YOU think dip correction is? 🍿
@@protothad837
Minus the distance from your eye to the FLAT surface of Earth..simple. .nothing to do with curvature.
@@protothad837
Wow you subtracted the height of your eye on the boat to the surface of the ocean
...you deserve a Noble prize for math dude
@@protothad837 I love it when flerfs try to spout BS about how sextants work.
It shows their ignorance.
Just a hit piece, nothing of substance, clickbait
Except the actual method of celestial navigation?
@@FTFEOfficial no mention of how you establish a flat baseline by sighting the horizon, and that the GP of the celestial will be ON and allong than flat horizontal baseline you established, it'll be at X distance BEYOND the horizon.. stretching out that flat baseline all the way to the GP without deviating from straight, if your Celestial's elevation angle was 30°, mins from 90°, that's then 60x60=3,600 nautical miles in a STRAIGHT LINE between YOU and the Celestial's GP.
How do you expect to have that Celestial's GP on the surface of your sphere. Bend the right angle triangle?
@Tac Mind I mean, the flat baseline isn't the ground.
It's an imaginary line and no, the gp is not along that line as the earth is curved. Its below it.
He talked through the ENTIRE method
@@TacMind also, the math you used only works on a globe...
@@TacMind _flat baseline by sighting the horizon_
The baseline is what flatties call "eye level" - an imaginary horizontal line that intersects the scope of the sextant. You get the angle between the star and horizontal by subtracting the dip angle (the angle the horizon appears below horizontal) from the angle you measure with the sextant. Simple stuff.
_GP of the celestial will be ON_
The GP is not on this imaginary horizontal line. No-one in history has claimed that it is until some flatties literally made that up a couple of years ago. The zenith angle tells you how far along the circumference of the Earth that the GP is. That's simple, isn't it? A zenith angle of 90° means that the GP is a quarter of the circumference of the Earth away or, assuming a circumference of 21600 NM, that's 5400NM. A zenith angle of 45° means that the GP is an eight of the circumference of the Earth away, or 2700 NM.
Do you know why this is the correct geometry? Because it actually works and is internally consistent! The flat Earth interpretation where you have a right-angled triangle that doesn't obey the laws of trigonometry is moronic.
I strongly recommend Googling, "wikipedia intercept method" and looking at the diagram on the that wikipedia page. It's very clear.
Should wonder why the constellations go around earth, cause if we were flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles an hour, those constellations would be gone in one day, never to be seen again..because we’d be in different location… they go round and round and round, the Mayans knew this…..it all orbits earth, like they taught for thousands of years….
That's because stars are very far away from us. If you move 1 meter, you won't notice any change in a far away mountain. Astronomers are able to notice these movements, however, with adecuate instruments (aka telescopes and things like that).
Ever wonder why the constellations rotate around a central point (the north star) in one direction in the northern hemisphere yet around a different point (the southern celestial pole) and in the other direction on the southern hemisphere? Because we live on a rotating sphere with two hemispheres and each side sees entirely different stars. Try creating a flat earth star map that can replicate that. Its impossible. As for them not moving as we zoom along, they are very very very far away. Incidentally they do move very slightly over time which is why the north star was not always the north star and in the future it will stop being so again.
We aren’t moving at hundreds of thousands of miles an hour away from the stars visible to the human eye. Almost all of the stars we can see with our eyes (the ones in constellations) are moving around the galaxy in roughly the same direction as the sun.
We are going around the sun at about 67000 mph (30Km/S) but we are going around it not on some different course and it is about 25 trillion miles to the nearest star we can see so as one of the other comments said while we can measure parallax in the nearest stars with telescopes and a lot of patience they don’t appear to move a lot relative to each other because they are incredibly distant compared to the size of our orbit around the sun. (~17 light minutes Vs 4.4 light years)
Space is HUGE ! Incomprehensibly, humorously, incredibly huge. It's so big that the travelling at light speed is to slow to travel between stars and return to meet those you left behind.
It's the Earth that rotate, NOT the stars.
EVEN if all the visible stars where actually stationary, it would take a few 1000's of years for the Sun to travel the distance to Proxima Centaury, the closest star.
ALL visible stars orbit within the Milky Way at about the same velocity as the Sun in about the same direction.
A million miles per hour is nothing compared to the distance to the stars.
So you don't understand scale, Fine, tell us how does night work on pizza world? Not one flurf has ever explained night.
Celestial navigation has long been used to obtain one’s position on the earth. 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.
Celestial navigation requires a flat baseline to work. A sphere with a radius of 3959 miles cannot generate an equal altitude circle of 1000s of miles around GP. If you do that two or three times, you get more several thousand miles to debunk the globe fantasy! ;)
Angles alone destroys the globe.
By definition, angles are straight lines and not curved lines.
Furthermore the acute angles between two straight lines (your line of sight, and the horizontal baseline you stand on) works only on a Flat Earth.
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.
Don’t spin, this is for damn sure…. The water would spin off into space…..
I would love to see a Flerf put a ball on the ground. stand in front of the ball and spin at 15deg per hour and at the same time walk around the ball at a MASSIVE rpm of 1deg per day while holding a glass full of water
This time next year tell us how Giddy you got
Says the idiot with precisely ZERO understanding of what he is talking about.
@@notamoron2246 another Flerf not knowing angular velocity and linear velocity
Iam talking about angular velocity
@@retired2920 Sorry mate, I was talking to the doughboy idiot, not you.
@@notamoron2246 All Good, Has Doughboy gone
Earth is a lot larger than we’ve been told…….. UN logo go look…..just because a compass says north, does not have to mean up…….. does it….
1) A globe wouldn’t show every country in the world, the disk shape they used even though small does include every country.
2) I believe the globeist conspiracy people would be smart enough to not include evidence of flat earth on a flag that every country can see/knows.
No its not, its the same size. Flat eathers just can't grasp how big it really is. Because to produce a flat map from a spherical shape (the earth), something has to get distorted. The UN logo uses a projection from the north pole. This distorts the southern hemisphere both in the shape of the countries and the distances between them. Other maps use different projections along the equator which tend to make the top and bottom of the maps look bigger than they are. The only way to accurately show the size of countries and the distances between them is to use an actual globe because that is the earths actual shape.
@@dorkangel1076 The ONLY scale I can think of for a Flerf map is
The Globe has a Circumference of 40,000km, that makes the flat earth has a Diameter of 40,000km
Draw a line with increments of 1cm by 40cm long that is a scale of 1cm is 1000km. Now when a Flerf states the sun is 7000km high it is only 7cm above the line
Not that high is it Flerfs
North is not UP. Who says that? Flerfs,
The UN logo is a particular PROJECTION of the globe onto a flat surface.
What happens to the water, when you cover a ball with water and spin the ball really really fast… please go out in your yard and do this experiment… physics are the same… ever ride the round up,, At a carnival.. wants to throw you off, not suck you in….. simple ocean level, water level, liquid level, sea level, etc…go cover a ball with water and spin it really really fast, go ahead…..
"physics are the same" Yep, the physics of gravity are the same. However, when you do the math, the numbers are pretty different. A tennis/football ball with water does a force far smaller to it than the planet-size Earth.
Okay, lets imagine someone sees an ocean liner weighing hundreds of tons floating gracefully on the water, then they go home and drop a 5 oz rock into their bathtub and watch it sink to the bottom, should they conclude that ocean liners or boats in general are fake? A hoax? Cgi? I mean, if a 5 oz Rock can't float, how is it possible for multiple tons of steel to float? Hopefully, they would take a moment to realize that many physical phenomena are dependent on scale. For example, the observed result of the rock sinking in a bathtub experiment cannot be extrapolated up to a body of water the size of the ocean. Similarly, the forces acting on a water logged ball spinning at Earth's surface ( where it is under the influence of gravity) does not apply to the physics of a rotating object the size of Earth itself.
How can you spin a wet ball outside without having a massive planet below it with gravity pulling everything towards its centre? How do you get a ball with the same gravitational force that the earth has? You can't, so no the physics is not the same. While we're on physics not being the same, spin the ball at one revolution per day (to match what the earth does) not thousands and thousands of revolutions per day that you suggest. You want an experiment that matches the physics, go on a carnival ride that spins at one revolution per day and see if you even notice it move. Incidentally if you shrunk the earth down to the size of a basket ball, the deepest ocean would be about the the depth of a coat of paint. Scale matters.
@@dorkangel1076 I would love to see a Flerf put a ball on the ground. stand in front of the ball and spin at 15deg per hour and at the same time walk around the ball at a MASSIVE rpm of 1deg per day while holding a glass full of water
This time next year tell us how Giddy you got
The Earth rotate at 15° per hour as Bob Knodel so brilliantly demonstrated. Thank, Bob.
Then, Jeran masterfully demonstrated that there is a curve. In was interesting indeed.
Earth's gravitational pull : 9.8m/s^2
Centrifugal force at the equator : 0.03m/s^2
That WHY water don't fly into space.
I will hire Proto Thad to navigate us safely to our destination.
...Brians' Illogic, Jokely, Quack Extreme and the rest of their crew, I will just drop them off in the middle of the ocean.
epic destroying of the flatards.
Flat earthers... they are always something to laugh at 😃
How do you use a refracted horizon Proto lol 😆 your a comedian, I do like ya though….
Just so you know a CEA is also a Circle of Equal Angle 📐 so Oh Oh 🤣
Il give it a thumbs up though because I’m sure your friend ( sorry I meant you ) put a lot of work into this farce, sorry I meant video :)
How do I use a refracted horizon? By applying the corrections from the nautical almanac, obviously. I though you claimed to understand this stuff, Brian. You just watched a video clearly demonstrating that circles of equal altitude intersect at the correct latitude longitude coordinates on a globe. I provided you the sextant angles and times so you can test it for yourself... try it on a globe... try it on map... prove me right or wrong.
Seriously, Brian. If the earth is flat, what is your explanation for those circles of equal altitude intersecting at the correct coordinates on a globe? 🤔🍿
@@protothad837 Lol No Proto the refraction included in Celestial Navigation is for Temperature and Pressure and Not a Globes 7/6 and greater than 7/6 over R ?
At Port the Navigators Height of Eye is measured above calm water, and that height of eye is then a constant throughout a journey.
But Proto your claiming a globe 🌎 and globe 7/6R standard refraction which is an actual change in the size of the globe, which means that when you sight the horizon then you don’t know wether your dip today will be the same as your dip yesterday or tomorrow, as the globes horizon is rising up and going down, so you can’t define how much to subtract to get the 90, as the horizon is not a constant in elevation, which is why you could never get your correct latitude sighting Polaris if the earth was a globe, as the horizon on a globe is always at least the horizon of a globe of 4,618.83 miles and not a 3,959 globe, as standard/terrestrial 7/6R is always in effect at all times on the globe, so 7/6R is the least it will be, and that can change on your model on any given day, destroying celestial navigation 🧭 on a globe.
@@protothad837 No Proto your CEA are not CEA, you used the equator as a benchmark for degrees but that is a curved distance that your trying to turn into a radius, but radii are a straight line Proto, so the circle you draw will be too small as your radii will be too small making the whole lot a farce.
I could have picked ten other things out of the video, but I didn’t want to be too critical.
@@Mr22brian22 I notice you never addressed the question of how, if the earth is flat, my demonstration on a globe was able to provide the correct latitude longitude coordinates. Yes, using the equator as my scale gives a curved distance. THAT WAS THE POINT. 😆 Circles of equal altitude are happening on the curving surface of a globe shaped earth, thus the distance from the GP to the circumference must be curved... and in my video I just TESTED and PROVED that point. Your belief that the circles must be flat and the distance to the GP is a straight line radius is a fallacy. You just witness it debunked, you just can't admit it to yourself.
But hey, if you think I'm wrong, there is an easy way to prove it... Just take those sextant angles and times from my video... heck, take ANY sextant angles... and draw your circles of equal altitude flat, showing them intersecting correctly. Do a position fix even ONCE, and then your opinions on celestial navigation might carry a bit more weight... don't you agree?