Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

[Dale Eastman]

i mean any of the celestial objects. The trick with your eyes demonstrates the different perspectives from the one eye to the other. How you go on to describe parallax is correct. But the initial experiment switching between the perspective of each eye separate, isn't parallax. In the photo yes the sun appears to be below those clouds. The clouds are much closer tho as perspective dictates that the farther the object the smaller and closer to the apparent horizon it will be. All these lights are flat and level, but from this terrestrial perspective the get lower and lower the farther they are and closer to the apparent horizon. So could i show you the flat earth kitchen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0euH6Wk4U&feature=youtu.be

this encapsules most of these optical phenomenon in one concise video. In not trying to gallop or what ever you called it. Just trying to give the best clarity. Take your time.

4 17:01
➽ How you go on to describe parallax is correct. But the initial experiment switching between the perspective of each eye separate, isn't parallax.

Are you claiming that each eye is not looking along a line of sight different from the other?

⚡Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along 𝙩𝙬𝙤 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines. Due to foreshortening, nearby objects show a larger parallax than farther objects when observed from different positions, so parallax can be used to determine distances.
Wikipedia⚡

4 17:01
➽ The clouds are much closer tho as perspective dictates that 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙧 and closer to the apparent horizon it 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙗𝙚.

That is exactly what I observed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0euH6Wk4U&feature=youtu.be
I mark that video at 6 minutes or 1/10 of an hour. You owe me $2 for that waste of my time.

You do realize that the sun's size, the sun's angular diameter, does NOT change regardless of on the horizon or at the zenith?

4 17:01
➽ All these lights are flat and level, but from this terrestrial perspective the get lower and lower the farther they are and closer to the apparent horizon

And the still shot of the street lights shows the exact same thing. As the object in view recedes its angular size decreases. It is assumed all the lights are made the same and thus the same size. The pixelatation causing piss poor resolution makes the image I modified not very accurate.

[Dale Eastman]

ok i see what you're saying about the parallax an i agree, that's correct.

remember the magnifying errect of moisture in the air...
https://youtu.be/bHma2XoaUnoII
And when there's very little moisture there is a noticeable change in size...
https://youtu.be/m-hIWRsfLmU

➽ remember the magnifying errect of moisture in the air...
https://youtu.be/bHma2XoaUnoII

I don't remember that which is not proven. And the link is broken.

wierd. Will it let this one work? https://youtu.be/bHma2XoaUII

Just giving you a head's up... I've been spending a S-load of time wrapping my mind around the trig formulas. Plus real life is being a PITA. Also, I didn't get a notification for your second attempt re: Atmo optics. That might have been my fault. I'm bookmarking the FB links when I get notifications and IIRC FB doesn't give notifications if there's one not clicked on. I gave you the like to notify acknowledgement of the post. Look for my on topic response, hopefully by, or even better, before tomorrow eve.

DAGNABBIT!

Life's being a PITA. I might not get back to posting the post I've been working on for several days...

In the mean while, this is a 4 minute song. Give it a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw9gLjEGJrw

[Dale Eastman]

In my 3 15:22 post I quoted Wiki:
⚡Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the times of culmination, when celestial objects are highest in the sky. Likewise, sailors will not shoot a star below 20° above the horizon.⚡
The errors caused by atmosphere are known.

Long time maritime celestial navigation has taught sailors nothing below 20°.

Blurry unfocused videos prove nothing.

Seems like you missed the point where I stated:
✨To my surprise, the claim is correct. The photo you supplied, and the one I supplied, "should" both be impossible on a globe.

Now back to the point I was going to make.

Something farther away than the sun, and above 20° above the horizon will be suitable for proving GE.

How about Polaris? Its angle of Declination is +89° 15′ 50.8″

Have a friend go to Pembina, North Dakota. Have another go to Brownsville, Texas at the same time of night. Have them shoot the angle of declination from their positions. The GE model says the difference in angles will be about 22°.

The GE model also says Polaris will be above the horizon the same degrees as the latitude of the observer.

In my travels to states both north and south, I have personally experienced and seen the change in the declination of Polaris.

Based upon the distance between Pembina and Brownsville, the angles of declination of Polaris, and the FE theory, Polaris is NOT 90° above the area on earth designated as "the north pole".

I will be happy to share the math and explain how I got to my conclusion, but only if requested prior to November 7, 2022. Boomer with CRS.

The attached image is where Polaris would be directly overhead according to FE theory.

I can't find the post where I said FE'ers will be removed from my feed if they don't answer questions about their FE beliefs. (I wanted to quote myself.) Regardless, with the time spent on the trig, I now will start asking questions and requesting data about the FE model of Earth and FE physics reality.

How thick is this FE?
What is below the surface of the other side of this FE?

Please post a link to a hi-rez FE map. I want to see if the map is a Mercator projection.
Please mark or indicate how I can find the pinpoint on this map to locate the north pole.
Please explain how a compass always points to this location on a FE.

How did you enjoy this music in this YT vid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw9gLjEGJrw

first how do you know it(polaris) is father than the sun? Second, the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate. With a magnetic north in the center, and Antarctica incompassing the known world(Antarctic treaty preventing independent exploration boyond the 60th degree parallel south) . We don't make claims about how deep the earth could be, we know the deepest hole ever dug is the bore hole in Russia, where they used ground penetrating radar, and it was wrong every step of the way. So i would have to ask how do globe believers Know what any deeper than that? And on this tread, the claim of the supposed core of the earth is a molten magnet. How does that reconcile with the curie point? But to your point polaris would apear lower in the sky the farther towards the south you go due to perspective. So this wouldn't prove anything either way. I'm asking around for some verification on the farthest south its been recorded, and I'll have to get that information to you when it comes in.

How'd you like the CS&N music. I got errands to run when wife gets back. Dunno that I'll get a reply posted before then.

it was pretty chill 😎

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/RJJ026.png

[Dale Eastman]

I'm going to kick these minor points out of the discussion. The meat of the discussion post was almost to the Fecalbook limit of 8000 characters.

➽ We don't make claims about how deep the earth could be

Smart move tactically. Bad move for proving FE model.
What makes the FE hold its shape?

➽ So i would have to ask how do globe believers Know what any deeper than that?

I am assuming that by "what any deeper" you are challenging for data on how far from the top surface to the bottom surface as in how deep would a hole be that comes out the other side and how do GE's know?

Trigonometry. A GE has a diameter. This diameter is knowable by trig calcs.

➽ the claim of the supposed core of the earth is a molten magnet. How does that reconcile with the curie point?

Eddy Currents. Also how frictionless brakes work with magnets on amusement park rides.

➽ Antarctica incompassing the known world

This is a claim that is unsupported. And if the source of the this claim is in error, then this claim based upon that source is also in error.

I asked you for an accurate map of the FE. You did not provide the requested resource. You did provide a bread-crumb for me when you stated, "the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate.". You seem to be unaware that Gleason's map is a Mercator projection of half a globe.

If you don't know what such a 3d to a 2d projection is, I will draw an image explaining.

➽ (Antarctic treaty preventing independent exploration boyond the 60th degree parallel south)

This is a claim that is presently unsupported. You've brought it up twice now. Recall, I wrote: I am nescient of the words of this treaty. So I only have a half challenge on the assumption that the treaty is hiding something.  The treaty is a null issue on the FE-GE discussion.

1. What makes the FE hold its "shape" is the same thing that gives a lake its shape. The land that's higher that gives lateral pressure. (Think a pond, then a lake, then, an ocean, water that's filled a basin.)
2. How would you know the depth to the core using an equation using "r" as a value for radius, when we both agree our determining radius is based on the sticks and shadows experiment that works on an fe modle without any presumptions?

3. Eddy currents are subject to heat because of the cury point magnets lose their magnetism, so how is a presumed molten core presumed to have any magnetism?

the gleasons map was published first, if anything the gleasons map was stitched over a globe, witch may account for the many discrepancies in the southern Oceans and why there is a correction for ships sailing southern oceans.

And here is an answer to the Antarctic treaty. https://youtu.be/SmYRFtY_jfQ

That video is 30 minutes long in case anybody else is curious.

I'm only 6 minutes into this video.

These are the words of the video poster:

💩For the globe trolls (whether you're paid trolls or just insane globe zealots who have nothing better to do than attack flat earthers) - this is my classroom and if you want to comment here, there are a few rules:  (1) no spamming, including group attacks - keep to your one comment and its thread; (2) no personal insults; (3) do not link to propaganda videos; (4) stay relevant to the topic at hand; and, (5) treat everyone here, especially my friends, with respect and kindness.  And no, I don't have to follow my own rules.  Violators will be banned immediately and I don't think anyone's going to shed any tears for you.💩

So I'll hold my nose and listen while I read the actual words of the treaty that I found while I was listening to six shit minutes at the beginning.

https://documents.ats.aq/recatt/att005_e.pdf
The treaty itself is only 2121 words.

... Nope. Couldn't do it. ... And with that annoying distraction out of the way, I am going to repeat what I have already written:

The treaty is a null issue on the FE-GE discussion.

Now back to composing my answer to the valid question:
➽ first how do you know it(polaris) is father than the sun?

basicly, independent travel beyond the 60⁰th south parallel is banned. There are several videos of people being turnded around by destroyers

The treaty is a null issue on the FE-GE discussion.

How is that a null to the issue? If the earth is actually a plane and it could be proven that Antarctica is actually a shoreline with land extending beyond but we are restricted from access. That's suspicious, at the least.

Okay...? I'll stipulate that that is indeed suspicious.

It still has absolutely no bearing on our discussion. You're not going there unless you be fucking rich. I have no reason to go there and have my testicles turn black and fall off from frostbite.

Your implied claim that they are not allowing anyone access to proof has absolutely no bearing on what proof you already have and can present.

⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭ ⬭

➽ first how do you know it(polaris) is father than the sun?

Excellent question, which, sorry, 'scuse my somewhat snarky reply, How do you know it isn't?

Now keeping with the intent of this discussion to examine and discuss facts, as I wrote before, trigonometry.

I will specifically answer this question of distance in another post.

I now attempt a detailed better presentation of how I reach the factual conclusions I reach.

Do all the stars appear to circle Polaris, thus making Polaris the center of this rotation?
Hint, time lapse photography.
https://search.brave.com/images?q=Polaris%20time%20lapse%20photography

Are all those stars circling some central point, or is the flat earth spinning under that central point? What is the mechanism or physics behind this motion?
What say the FE model?
These questions can be considered rhetorical because the motion has no bearing on the trig, which is why I originally chose Polaris. Motion and the related time of day have no bearing on the trig for Polaris.

➽ [Gleason's] map is the map that seems to be most accurate. With a magnetic north in the center,[...]

Is this center of rotation basically 90° straight up from this pole in the center of the Gleason map?

➽ I'm asking around for some verification on the farthest south its [Polaris] been recorded, and I'll have to get that information to you when it comes in.

Excellent. Test that against the GE model that calculates Polaris is basically unviewable south of the Equator. How far south depends on the elevation of the viewer.

And by south on Gleason's map you are intending any bearing directly away from the center pole point??

<evil laugh>
Imma turn that research on its head...

♬♩♫♪ "When you see the Southern Cross for the first time." ♩♪♫♬

⚡Crux is a constellation of the southern sky that is centred on four bright stars in a cross-shaped asterism commonly known as the Southern Cross⚡
⚡In tropical regions Crux can be seen in the sky from April to June. ⚡

➽ But to your point polaris would apear lower in the sky the farther towards the south you go due to perspective. So this wouldn't prove anything either way.

That is where you err.

This apparent elevation can be measured as an angular measure. If the distance to the point directly under some object doubles, the angular measure will half. This relationship is linear. This angular measure can actually be... measured. With trig, one angular measure and one distance measure is all that is required to figure out the other two angles and the other two distances.

Astral navigation is based upon the concept that any thing in the sky, at any given time, is directly overhead of some point on the earth... Be it the sun, the moon, or the stars. (I'm ignoring the planets. As I understand the word, planet meant wanderer. The angle between any given star and the wanderer changes over time. I'm also ignoring "retrograde motion", which is why they're called wanderers.)

The definitive answer to the GE - FE model debate is where some elevated object like a star is 90° straight up over some location on the earth. The angles of declination from two different points on the earth to this object will confirm or deny GE or FE. Obviously only one model is going to be accurate for navigation.

Brownsville to Pembina distance is?
1594 miles calculated based on the latitudes of the two locations and a GE. I will show the math if requested. The differences in the angles of declination are based upon Polaris being above the rotational point of the "pole" on the earth.

I then calculated the 90° straight up location on a flat earth using those same angles. The FE model puts the Polaris 90° straight up point 2767 miles north of Brownsville, and 1173 miles north of Pembina as shown on my last post's image attachment. I calculated the elevation of Polaris' as 1350 miles above its 90° straight up point. This location 90° straight up point location is in error by 1652 miles; off by about 60%.

Any two points on the earth, not the same distance from the 90° straight up point can be used to check the accuracy of the FE - GE models. Provided the object measured is greater than 20° above the horizon for better accuracy.

➽ With a magnetic north in the center,

Imagine that... A magnetic pole that compass needles align to...

I've never played with a magnet that only had a north pole. So there simply MUST be a south pole. Where is it on your flat earth?

[Dale Eastman]

1. polaris being dead center, yes any point in the equestrial circle can use it for navigation.
2. It seems to favor that of a toroidal field or primer field. https://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI
3. Yes south would be every direction away from the center.
I'll add that there used to be a hole in the Georgia guide stones that pointed right to polaris. Adding to the fact that it doesn't move, ever

https://youtu.be/CSIPolpvjBY

8 18:30
➽ Adding to the fact that [Polaris] doesn't move, ever

That statement is factually in error. The factual error is less than .74°, or 3/4 of a degree.
Polaris angle of Declination is +89° 15′ 50.8″, not +90° 00′ 00.0″

So Polaris does indeed move... Just not enough to matter in the short term (24 hour) span.
In the long term: Precession:

📖Currently, Earth's pole stars are Polaris (Alpha Ursae Minoris), a bright magnitude-2 star aligned approximately with its northern axis that serves as a pre-eminent star in celestial navigation, and a much dimmer magnitude-5.5 star on its southern axis, Polaris Australis (Sigma Octantis).

From around 1700 BC until just after 300 AD, Kochab (Beta Ursae Minoris) and Pherkad (Gamma Ursae Minoris) were twin northern pole stars, though neither was as close to the pole as Polaris is now. 📖

https://search.brave.com/search?q=astroarchaeology
and
https://search.brave.com/search?q=g%C3%B6bekli+tepehttps://search.brave.com/search?q=astroarchaeology

➽ 2. It seems to favor that of a toroidal field or primer field. https://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI

I don't know what "It" refers to. I am assuming my comment about a mono-pole magnet. The provided link does address the issue of the apparent monopole magnet for the FE theory. However, what the vid shows is NOT a monopole magnet. The magnet is a bowl shaped tube. The small opening rim is one polarity, the large opening rim is the other pole. See the attached screencap showing the rims sticking to each other.

Good vid for the macro physics look-see. Thanks. I want to watch it beyond just skimming it to find your FE point.

It is clear the bowls are made of magnetic material. What is the magnetic material that would make a mag field with a pole in the center of a disc and the other pole at the rim of the disk. GE says Eddy Currents in molten iron. FE says:?

Off topic is a discussion of magnetic eddy currents in plasma... Which is what the vid was about.

Again: 𝓨𝓸𝓾 𝓼𝓮𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸 𝓫𝓮 𝓾𝓷𝓪𝔀𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓖𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓸𝓷'𝓼 𝓶𝓪𝓹 𝓲𝓼 𝓪 𝓜𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓸𝓻 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓳𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓸𝓯 𝓱𝓪𝓵𝓯 𝓪 𝓰𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓮.
If you don't know what such a 3d to a 2d projection is, I will draw an image explaining.

sounds like a cool story. But the shaft in the great pyramids still point to polaris, and there's no recorded time of another star being there. In at least the last 40 years of the Georgia guide stones being up, polaris didn't move even a half a degree. There is no southern pole star. https://youtu.be/DWsWNsuP-KI

https://www.facebook.com/lomaclan1221/videos/630206361966206/?idorvanity=2605029686242858

compasses only point north.

And a compass on a ball would be pointing to "outer space"

I am still composing my answer to the valid question:
➽ first how do you know it(polaris) is father than the sun?

When I am done doing that, I will then turn my attention to your https://search.brave.com/search?q=Gish+Gallop

[Dale Eastman]

You are indeed Gish Galloping. I don't think you are doing deliberately... So discussion will continue.

I've just finished reviewing the discussion because I missed seeing some of your posts.

I do not know if you actually know any trig and how to use it. No matter. Because of this discussion, I am essentially writing a tutorial/primer on the topic. This is why I am not addressing your Gish Gallop topics.

You were so focused on what you were posting, you ignored the main points of my 8 18:10 post. So I am reposting that portion.

I forgot to attach this image the first time. The attached image is where Polaris would be directly overhead according to FE theory.

Please address the concepts I've re-posted.
♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢
7 18:07
➽ But to your point polaris would apear lower in the sky the farther towards the south you go due to perspective. So this wouldn't prove anything either way.

That is where you err.

This apparent elevation can be measured as an angular measure. If the distance to the point directly under some object doubles, the angular measure will half. This relationship is linear. This angular measure can actually be... measured. With trig, one angular measure and one distance measure is all that is required to figure out the other two angles and the other two distances.

Astral navigation is based upon the concept that any thing in the sky, at any given time, is directly overhead of some point on the earth... Be it the sun, the moon, or the stars. (I'm ignoring the planets. As I understand the word, planet meant wanderer. The angle between any given star and the wanderer changes over time. I'm also ignoring "retrograde motion", which is why they're called wanderers.)

The definitive answer to the GE - FE model debate is where some elevated object like a star is 90° straight up over some location on the earth. The angles of declination from two different points on the earth to this object will confirm or deny GE or FE. Obviously only one model is going to be accurate for navigation.

Brownsville to Pembina distance is?
1594 miles calculated based on the latitudes of the two locations and a GE. I will show the math if requested. The differences in the angles of declination are based upon Polaris being above the rotational point of the "pole" on the earth.

I then calculated the 90° straight up location on a flat earth using those same angles. The FE model puts the Polaris 90° straight up point 2767 miles north of Brownsville, and 1173 miles north of Pembina as shown on my last post's image attachment. I calculated the elevation of Polaris' as 1350 miles above its 90° straight up point. This location 90° straight up point location is in error by 1652 miles; off by about 60%.

Any two points on the earth, not the same distance from the 90° straight up point can be used to check the accuracy of the FE - GE models. Provided the object measured is greater than 20° above the horizon for better accuracy.
♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢

[Dale Eastman]

i don't mean to gish gallop. But i thought the video around 3 mins would explain what you're talking about. Perspective has to be taken into account https://www.facebook.com/lomac.../videos/630206361966206/...

No it does not. I can state that without even viewing the video that I have to join the group to see.

Because I understand trigonometry.

I've had this post in the can for at least two days:

7 18:07
➽ first how do you know it(polaris) is father than the sun?

4 15:42
➽ how are the sizes and distances to those celestial objects we see known?

Please refer to the attached illustration.
There is a flat earth model on top and a globe earth model on the bottom.

When putting lines on an M$ Paint creation, holding the shift key while dragging the line into existence will snap the line to horizontal, vertical, or 45°.

The triangle bounded by the red angled lines is larger on the GE model. In both models, the length from earth to the unknown elevation is the same. The length from the baselines of the triangles is not.

This post is just a preview of a sort. I've one more needing to be proof read by my wife who knows nothing of trigonometry, to check that I have written something understandable. It uses this attached image.

I will re-write that page with different numbers. The re-write will be mostly copy-paste with different numbers. The re-draw edit of this image will be a little more demanding of me.

[Dale Eastman]

directly under polaris.

Moving south.

ill admit i don't understand what you're trying to show me with those angles. Since curvature isn't observed in nature. It's kinda like the difference between algebra and arithmetic. Arithmetic is like saying. "Bob has three apples and gives you one, how many does bob have" vs algebra where you say, "if bob has three apples ang gives you one, how many does bob have?" The latter leaves open a presumption that "if" bob has three apples. That's what your doing right now. "If earth is a globe with a radius of "x", then the sun is "y" distance and is "z" size. That's all based on a presumption that is refuted by long distance observation and modern optics.

i think this one is viewable for you lmk if it's not.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10227934285492467&id=1531867299

11 10:43
➽ ill admit i don't understand what you're trying to show me with those angles.

Thank you. That tells me you have no clue about trigonometry. My observed fact of your failure to address my words about angles, I suspected as much.

That makes it my burden to educate you on trig calc's... Provided you are willing to learn.

I am writing: a webpage: Trigonometry for Flat Earthers.
That is why I'm not being as responsive to your posts as I was.

➽ Since curvature isn't observed in nature.

That is a claim that has been refuted so many times... The curvature is clearly visible when one is at a high enough altitude.

About 1.28 light seconds of altitude away from Earth, or 238900 miles.

Same with something a little closer, 62 miles.
https://www.space.com/16769-spaceshipone-first-private-spacecraft.html

➽ The latter leaves open a presumption that "if" bob has three apples. That's what your doing right now. "If earth is a globe with a radius of "x", then the sun is "y" distance and is "z" size.

By that statement, you have informed me that you are not reading my entire posts, or if you are, you have CRS worse than my Boomer ass has.

I repeat:
✪ Please refer to the attached illustration.
There is a flat earth model on top and a globe earth model on the bottom. ✪

Without math (to include trig) it's not science. I am going to compare the math of your FE and my GE.

[Dale Eastman]

hold up. We both agree that the chicago skyline should not be visible in that picture. This is another impossible picture on a globe. The only place you've ever seen curvature is when a fisheye lens is used, or cgi.

you're using and equation using r for radius and we haven't established a radius.

11 10:43
➽ ill admit i don't understand what you're trying to show me with those angles.

Okay. I'm going to go over this slowly.

Please refer to the attached illustration.
⚠ There is a flat earth model on top and a globe earth model on the bottom. ⚠

There are only two angles on this image. The top elevation of both thick black objects is the same height.
This image shows and visually represents what a difference in angles would be, FE v. GE.

Do you understand that this is how FE - GE is definitively determined?

[Dale Eastman]

Yes i see that. I'm not getting your point, tho.

if you're saying that the top of the pole is polaris. And at the equator your looking at a 0⁰ or right near the horizon. I'm showing you this is how perspective works and it does the same on the fe model in an auto cad.

your graphic also shows curvature. The chicago skyline photo refutes the claimed radius. And if that's not enough this photo refutes the globes curve calculator even more. You have to determine "r" for any of your graphics to work.

I am calling you out on your Gish Galloping.
I'm also calling you on your failure to look up what the term means.
Now I'm going to provide the definition you did not look up.

📖 The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. It's essentially a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the Galloper's part to make each individual point before skipping to the next (especially if they cite from a pre-concocted list of Gallop arguments), a refutation of the same Gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop 📖

What I see you doing, deliberate or not, is throwing shit at the wall hoping some will stick.

➽ if you're saying that the top of the pole is polaris.

The only thing you need to focus on for now is that the top elevation of both thick black objects is some elevated point directly above some point on the FE and the GE respectively. And that the elevated point is exactly the same in both models depicted.

Sorry... It's a "math" thing.
Until I discuss angular size with you I don't want to read another thing about "perspective".

I've got all your words saved in an archive of this discussion. Much easier to navigate than Fecalbook, though since it's only you and I commenting, FB is actually usable for backtracking what was written. And for confirming that which you didn't read or don't remember... Which I am NOT going to address. I want you focused on what I am presenting now.

Look at this image. Do you see that if the the top elevation of both thick black objects is increased, then the angles of both the FE and the GE models will increase?

THIS! Is how the FE - GE is determined. The location directly under some elevated object, and the angle and location of the observer.

I will remind you from sailing navigation going back 1,500 years, for accuracy, nothing below 20°.

Do you understand that angles is how FE - GE is determined?

[Dale Eastman]

i looked up the definition prior. Trying to understand what you're getting at with this graphic. As perspective dictates that objects farther away apear at a lower angle to us either way.

the angles of the 2 red buildings are different but the red buildings are the same hight. Perspective makes them apear to the observer at different angles. I'm trying to understand what you're getting all with your graphic.

<Sigh...> What do you understand about angular measure?

[Dale Eastman]

i know when something is less than .2 arch seconds your eye cannot resolve it and when something gets farther its angular size decreases to the point it vanishes. The angular resolution limits of your eyes' primary cause is fraunhofer defraction at eye level.

so when viewing polaris at let's say +60⁰north latitude, it will apear at a greater angle to the observer than one standing at +35⁰ north latitude. But again i don't see how you determine "r" using this method.

13 13:21
➽ i don't see how you determine "r" using this method.

The angles from the viewpoint of the two different latitudes will be the GE angles of declination to Polaris. With that knowledge and the distance between the two observation points, not only is GE - FE determined, so too is the distance to Polaris.

On a GE there are actually two distances between the observation points. The chord and the arc. So a question arises as to which of those two distances is used by FE. And there is a third distance available for FE to use.

If this makes sense to you, I'll show you how to calculate the difference between what FE says and GE says for the distance to Polaris.

Heads up I'll be away from my computer for about an hour. I'll pick up where we leave off when I get back.

[Dale Eastman]

well fe doesn't claim a distance to polaris. Only the location as it being at the center of the world pond, and relative angle to position within the circles (arctic circle,tropic of cancer and a far south as the equator) And i would love to see how the distance to polaris is done on the globe model. (Being as all the sizes and distances of all the celestial bodies are determined by the size of the earth, which we both agree we have not determined this far in our conversation("r"))

12 13:52
➽ well fe doesn't claim a distance to polaris.
➽ (Being as all the sizes and distances of all the celestial bodies are determined by the size of the earth, which we both agree we have not determined this far in our conversation("r"))

Both observations are correct.

I am using the same image as a base. I am not counting pixels to scale it properly. I am only using it for reference as to what value goes where in the equation.

The distance from Barstow California to Indian Cabins Alberta is taken right off of Gobble Maps. I am using this distance on the FE depiction. I am using this value with these angles to calculate the elevation on an FE map.

I want to make sure I'm not posting errors due to brain hiccups. As a Boomer, my short term CRS is making it hard for me to juggle eggs. I will do the same thing with a GE map / model either tonight or tomorrow. I need some Lerts. I don't think anybody in the neighborhood can loan me a lert.

Line a-d = 1714 miles.
Line a-c = Y
Line c-d = Y-1714

Tangent of 60⁰ = 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
X = Tan(60) * (Y-1714)
X = 1.732 * (Y-1714)
X = (1.732 * Y)-(1.732 x 1714)
X = 1.732Y - 2,968.6


Tangent of 35⁰ = 0.70020753820970977945852271944483
X = Tan(35) * (Y)
X = 0.7Y

X = 0.7Y = 1.732Y - 2968.6
X = 2968.6 = 1.732Y - 0.7Y
X =  2968.6 = 1.032Y
Y= 2968.6 / 1.032
Y = 2876.6
X = 0.7 *  2876.6
X = 2013.6

X = Line b-c
Line c-d = Y-1714
Line c-d = 2876.6 - 1714
Line c-d = 1162.6
Check values
X = Tan(60) * 1162
X = 2013.7
X = Tan(35) * 2876.6

[Dale Eastman]

i follow. Is this where you get the difference between the moon on either side of the earth, by chance?

I've not made the case for a GE yet. That is presently an unproven claim on my part in re: GE. But yes, the diameter makes the baseline for measuring the angles and this determines distance.

In the case of the moon and the sun, the angular measure, the angular diameter is 0.5⁰. What is known from that is that the ratio of moon & sun diameters is the same as their respective inverse distance from earth ratio.

[Dale Eastman]

In keeping within the envelope this discussion creates, I am looking to show the math that definitively proves GE. The Polaris example of the math on the previous FE model shows how it's done.

According to GE, Polaris' distance is unsettled. 433 - 448 light-years. According to GE, Earth's distance to the sun is 93,000,000 miles.

For purpose and mechanics of this discussion, for now I label 433 LY's and 93,000,000 miles an assumption. I used these figures for my investigative calculations. The purpose being how small of an angular difference.

My calc's show only 0.000,002,09° difference. 93e6 / 2.3e15. So that does not prove nor disprove because of angular resolution. I messed with a sextant that I inherited. My opinion of this particular sextant is +/- 0.5° margin of error. I doubt you have a more precise instrument and I know I don't.
Santa Barbara, CA
34.42352697861604, -119.69657200920265

Surf City, NC
34.42961212770392, -77.55404848374764

Difference
-42.14252352545501

Because those two cities are not on the equator, the declination angles will be lower by the number of degrees latitude. I don't care to have to teach myself 3D trig. I am ignoring that error so that how the sun's elevation a.k.a. distance is determined along with the earth's circumference and radius.

If the sun's zenith is 90° over Santa Barbara, and at exactly the same time, the sun's angle of declination is 42° west of Surf City... The following calc's apply.

As depicted in SUN 1:

The declination of the sun is 90° above Santa Barbara.
The declination of the sun is X° (unknown) above Surf City.
The elevation - distance of the sun above Santa Barbara is Y (unknown).

Ground Truth:

Gobble Maps routing shows 2716 miles. I am using that as my ground truth.

As I write this, I am undecided if I want to do the Polaris flat earth exercise with this ground truth that will show a discrepancy and the 90° will not be over Santa Barbara.