Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

[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 is the 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.

These negative numbered specifications are based upon "Right Ascension", which in terms of our discussion, is only a GE assumption at this time. The positive numbers are angles of latitude and again is only a GE assumption at this time.

On the assumption of a GE, these numbers allow for a rudimentary calculation of earth's "r".

Santa Barbara, CA
34.42352697861604, -119.69657200920265

Surf City, NC
34.42961212770392, -77.55404848374764

Difference
-42.14252352545501°

r = 1358 miles ÷ Sine(21°)
r = 1358 miles ÷ 0.3583679
r = 3789 miles

The Wikipedia article claims 3959.
This is a discrepancy of 170 miles in radius.
Back calculating for gross error check, The Wiki value calc's the value of the ground truth to a 129 mile discrepancy.
I will play with again later.

The sine of 42 is:
0.66913060635885821382627333068678
The sine of 42.5 is:
0.67559020761566024434833935367435
The difference is:
0.00645960125680203052206602298757

[Dale Eastman]

Okay... The discrepancy was bugging me. I found where the discrepancy got into the math. I found the problem. I was the error.

I forgot that the latitude circumference decreases as latitude increases. The lines of meridian, the lines of longitude are widest at the equator and all converge on the pole locations.

Caveat: In my opinion, I have not yet proved a GE.

r₀ is the real radius of the globe * cos(0°)
cos(0°) = 1

r₄₅ = r₀ * cos(45°)
cos(45°) = 0.707
r₄₅ = r₀ * 0.707

r₂₃ = r₀ * cos(23°)
cos(23°) = 0.920
r₂₃ = r₀ * 0.920

And of course, the latitudes of SC and SB are about 34.4°

r₃₄ = r₀ * cos(34.4°)
cos(34.4°) = 0.825
r₃₄ = r₀ * 0.825

Now I need to calculate the actual difference in the line of sight angles by calculating actual degrees of angular separation of the two locations. These line of sight angles will be different depending upon FE or GE ground angle orientation.

I'm waiting for you to get to your point... reminder assumed distances to lights in the sky isn't scientific... but for the sake of your claim, go on.

[Dale Eastman]

➽ I'm waiting for you to get to your point

So am I.

In keeping within the envelope this discussion creates, I am looking to show the math that definitively proves GE. My original thought was, I "know" GE because math (trig).

In the exercise of this discussion, I have to change that claim to I "believe" GE because math (trig).

I know how it is and was done. In order to explain how trig gives answers, I had to do the trig... And explain it. So I am learning as I am teaching. Having done this, I'm back to I "know" GE because math (trig).

➽ reminder assumed distances to lights in the sky isn't scientific

The whole point of my doing trig calc's is to determine distances. And prove those distances.

I used the calculation end result of others to Polaris to check my math. The discrepancies sent me back to the calculator. In doing the trig for the below, the difference between the tangents of 89.99832672° and 89.9° is a factor of 6.

And a note to myself: Those "lights" in the sky.
♔ ♕ ♖ ♗ ♘ ♙
I want to make clear that I am using the Gobble Maps routing mileage from Surf City to Santa Barbara for "Ground Truth". This is a measurement that pegs the math to a physical reality. This distance is either a chord measurement in the FE model, or an arc measurement in the GE model.

I used the Wiki claim of r = 3959 to back calculate the angular distance between the two cities on a GE.
I used the ground truth as an arc between the two cities.
Circumference = 2 pi r = 2 * 3.14159 * 3959
Circumference = 24,875

Arc° = Ground truth / 24,875 * 360°
Arc° = 2716 / 24,875 * 360°
Arc° = 0.109 * 360°
Arc° = 0.109 * 360°
Arc° = 39.3°

Ground truth = 2716

On FE...

Santa Barbara LOS angle = 90°
Surf City line of sight angle = 89.99832672°

On GE...
Santa Barbara LOS angle = 90°
Surf City LOS angle = 89.99832672° - angle of separation SB to center back to SC.
Surf City LOS angle = 89.99832672° - 39.3°.
Surf City LOS angle = 50.69832672°

That is how globe earth is determined.

On FE & GE:
Ground truth distance = 2716

Elevation on FE = tangent (50.698°) * Ground truth
3,318.1 = 1.221688 * 2716

Elevation on GE = Tan(89.99832672°) * ground truth
93 million = 34,241.59 * 2716

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman again the assumption of "r" is refuted by our actual scientific (observable, measurable, repeatable, verifiable) observations. So this is the problem we run into. If "r" then "x". That's why i make the analogy of "if Bob has three apples, then..." but your not showing Bob having the apples. Polaris is claimed to be 48 times bigger than the sun. So imagine the sun claimed to be 8, light minutes away. If we had the sun at one mile above your head, it would fill your sky horizon to horizon, and then you move it 93 million miles away, so it's where we see it(about the size of a coin held at arm's length). If you doubled the distance how big would it be? (16 light minutes) Could you see it? Were just talking angular size, the inverse square law of light would be a whole other thing on top of this but for now we'll stick with the angular size. What of we doubled the distance again? (32 light minutes) and again so now the sun is 8 times the distance(32x2=64, we'll call it a light hour) you think we could see the sun? Now with Polaris being claimed at 48 times bigger than the sun, at 2 (48 light hours, 2 light days we wouldn't be able to see Polaris. They claim is 400 and some change light years away. Do you think you could see it at that distance, even ignoring the inverse square law of light?

again the assumption of "r" is refuted by our actual scientific (observable, measurable, repeatable, verifiable) observations.

So this is the problem we run into. If "r" then "x". That's why i make the analogy of "if Bob has three apples, then..." but your not showing Bob having the apples.

Polaris is claimed to be 48 times bigger than the sun. So imagine the sun claimed to be 8, light minutes away. If we had the sun at one mile above your head, it would fill your sky horizon to horizon, and then you move it 93 million miles away, so it's where we see it(about the size of a coin held at arm's length).

If you doubled the distance how big would it be? (16 light minutes) Could you see it? Were just talking angular size, the inverse square law of light would be a whole other thing on top of this but for now we'll stick with the angular size.

What of we doubled the distance again? (32 light minutes) and again so now the sun is 8 times the distance(32x2=64, we'll call it a light hour) you think we could see the sun?

Now with Polaris being claimed at 48 times bigger than the sun, at 2 (48 light hours, 2 light days we wouldn't be able to see Polaris.

They claim is 400 and some change light years away. Do you think you could see it at that distance, even ignoring the inverse square law of light?

➽ I'm waiting for you to get to your point

So am I. ⛒waiting to get to my point. I had to do the math to my own satisfaction first. And I shared the math.⛒

➽ again the assumption of "r" is refuted by our actual scientific (observable, measurable, repeatable, verifiable) observations.

That is a naked claim on your part. You have espoused mere opinion.

Show me the math of "measurable" observations to determine the value of "r" or its non existence.

I've shown you the math to prove the existence of "r" by showing how a GE is determined. You have chosen to ignore the simple fact... A simple fact that I must now specifically point out.

On a flat earth, at the exact same time, the sun's declination will be 90° in Santa Barbara and 89.99832672° in Surf City.
On a globe earth, at the exact same time, the sun's declination will be 90° in Santa Barbara and 50.6° in Surf City.

All that needs to be done is have two friends on opposite coasts measure the angle to the sun at exactly the same time.

[Dale Eastman]

you can't prove a negative. But the physics of any liquid is to find and maintain level. Anything from the size of a cup, to a bath tub to a pond, lake, and even the oceans maintain level. The city of chicago from across lake Michigan shows at least 40 to 50 miles of flat water. There were several laser experiments performed by fecore showing a flat level surface at 12 miles. https://youtu.be/YsSanuUNygI
The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. The globe with a circumference of 24,900 miles is the claim. This is the world record for long distance photography. This is another peice of evidence that refutes your "r".

so before you start doing more math based on assumptions and presumption how do you determine "r"?

sorry for the gallop

➽ sorry for the gallop

You are throwing shit at the wall. None of it is going to stick. I decline to follow you off the important, definitive point.

➽ so before you start doing more math based on assumptions and presumption how do you determine "r"?

I have just shown you how the existence of "r" is determined. RTFS!

Somehow, you are missing this definitive point.

if earth is a ball 24,900 miles in circumference, and if those things are as far/ and as big as you say. Then yes your trig works. I'm asking you to verify those things. Because "if bob has 3 apples..." isn't the same as "bob has 3 apples".

im qualifying my claim that refutes your supposed curvature.

Not throwing shit at the wall.

RTFS!

Definitive point:

On a flat earth, at the exact same time, the sun's declination will be 90° in Santa Barbara and 89.99832672° in Surf City.

On a globe earth, at the exact same time, the sun's declination will be 90° in Santa Barbara and 50.6° in Surf City.

No measurement is required. In Surf City, the sun is directly overhead, or it is not.

When you claim "perspective" I am going to ✂...

Demand you show me the math.

[Dale Eastman]

well i happen to live in NC. At 4o click my time it will be noon in cali. I'll take a picture of the sun and show you it will be at about 50⁰in the sky to me. You're assumed distance to the sun is why you're getting your discrepancy. Because there's no evidence the sun is 93,000,000 miles away.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
A claim without proof may be refuted without proof.
There's no evidence the sun is NOT 93,000,000 miles away.

At least there is no evidence that has been provided by you.
No matter.
You are refusing to focus on my issue of how angles prove GE.
Again, no matter.

That leaves you with "perspective" to explain angles. Now...

I DEMAND YOU SHOW ME THE MATH!

The angle in Santa Barbara is 90°
The angle in Surf City is 50.6°
The ground truth is 2716 miles.
The sun's elevation - distance is X? miles.
If your answer matches mine, I will go to the next examining step.

Do you need a point to what formula to use?

[Dale Eastman]

i don't think you understand. Your claiming the sun is 93,000,000 miles away with no evidence. Here's my evidence...

here from where i am in nc counting the degrees, we see 15, 30,45, and right about 50⁰when the sun is 90 over cali.

so your saying outside of assumed distances for assumed calculations, you have no evidence?

looking south, at 90, i see the sun is down to not quite 45⁰ id say is about 50⁰.

i could make up any math equation using assumed distances. That doesn't constitute evidence.

<Sigh...> You have every thing required for you to tell me the elevation - distance of the sun above a flat earth.

I DEMAND YOU SHOW ME THE MATH!

The angle in Santa Barbara is 90°
The angle in Surf City is 50.6°
The ground truth is 2716 miles.
What is the sun's elevation - distance?

[Dale Eastman]

If you go back to our conversation i told you idon't make any positive claims that i can't support. Best estimates put it between 3000-5000 miles. But i will say you need a lot more than some trig equations to put an absolute hight on where the sun renders, and i told you we can get into that later still. I'm asking for solid evidence for these globe claims. I still don't understand where you get r from. And where you get these distances from.

➽ Best estimates put it between 3000-5000 miles.

I'm not asking for best estimates. I am asking for mathematical calculations. GIGO is a term in computing. Garbage In Garbage Out. What is the best measurement elevation of the sun over a FE ? The figures to be used:

The angle in Santa Barbara is 90°
The angle in Surf City is 50.6°
The ground truth is 2716 miles.
What is the sun's elevation - distance?

I DEMAND YOU SHOW ME THE MATH!

[Dale Eastman]

you don't demand anything from me, first of all. I told you there's questions i have about your model and that i don't make claims with no evidence. Now, the bullshit number you propose is based on several fallacies that I'm asking you to clarify. Going to Wikipedia for their "r" for radius and their presumed distances is an appeal to authority fallacy. The first thing i stated was i want the fundamentals. According to your calculations there's supposed to be curvature of the earth. When we actually measure geometrically(to measure the earth) we don't see your proported 8"per mile squared. So all those equations you did don't describe observed reality.

Do you think the sun is a physical thing?

3,306.5 miles high. Too high for either of us to actually measure. So i would like to stick with things that are verifiable. Looking at the ceiling does not tell you the shape of the floor.

this is from wiki. Seems like they still go based on erestothenes estimates and guess work. But never the less the radius they propose still doesn't match what we observe. Could it be because erestothenes never witnessed parallel light rays from the sun, which is where our conversation was at before you detoured into assumptive mathematics.

upon further review i find that the tropic of cancer is at 23.4⁰north, while Santa Barbra is at 34.4⁰north. That said you will never get the sun at 90⁰over santa barbra. So not only have you assumed the radius and the distances but you're also assuming the degrees of angles. I feel you're being disingenuous in our conversation.

➽ Too high for either of us to actually measure.

That is not correct. Such measuring is done with trigonometry. And it is NOT just you or I with an interest in measuring such things.

➽ 3,306.5 miles high.

This concurs with my result on a flat earth.

Now I will examine the "perspective" claim of FE.
Earlier I told you I'm not interested in the perspective theory for apparent elevation.

I am now going to engage the theory via the trig math.
In running these numbers, the math basically supports the "plausible" claim of a flat earth.
This does NOT prove a flat earth.

I'm handing you a Sorry chip. Ⓢ

Apparent Elevation = Ground Truth * tangent (50.6°)
Apparent Elevation 3,306.51 = 2716 * 1.2174199245579775791481703519979

Working the problem in reverse shows the differences because of rounding.
ArcTangent (Elevation / Ground Truth) = angle.
ArcTangent (1.2174153166421207658321060382916) = angle.
ArcTangent (Elevation / Ground Truth) = 50.599978623973347305787204622484°

This is close enough to confirm the 50.6° angle.

With the perspective theory, as the baseline doubles, the apparent angle of declination halves.

ArcTangent (3306 / 2 * Ground Truth) = 31.325346542640755203814710186387°
ArcTangent (3306 / 4 * Ground Truth) = 16.92541442526817730978967653951°
ArcTangent (3306 / 8 * Ground Truth) = 8.6514212337380432987587103592594°

I just showed you the math I expected from you to support the perspective theory.
Now gimme back my sorry chip.

As celestial navigating sailors have known for over a thousand years, nothing below 20°.
So I discard the apparent angles less than 20°.
Which means I will need to do the calc's with decreasing ground truth distances.

ArcTangent (3306 / 9083) = 20.00032508386290913198252757956°
ArcTangent (3306 / 2 * Ground Truth) = 31.325346542640755203814710186387°
ArcTangent (3306 / .5 * Ground Truth) = 67.668695575603243959058067598244°
ArcTangent (3306 / .25 * Ground Truth) = 78.393752870033447190350441427844°
ArcTangent (3306 / .125 * Ground Truth) = 84.136730555754599482739892766326°

The line of sight angle from the sighting location to the sun will be the longest distance.
This is the hypotenuse of a right triangle.

These 5 lines show the steps used to determine the LOS distance with the original ground truth and the FE elevation.
LOS distance = ²√(3306² + 9083²)
LOS distance = ²√(3306² + 2716²)
LOS distance = ²√(10,929,636 + 7,376,656)
LOS distance = ²√(18,306,292)
LOS distance = 4,278.58

LOS distance calculated with the FE elevation and the baseline of the FE distance to the directly under the sun location.
(<20°)
21,978.07= ²√(3306² + 21,728²)

(<20°)
11,183.80 = ²√(3306² + 10,864²)

Those two values are discarded because the are less than 20°.
The following six values are not less than 20°.

(20°)
9,665.94 = ²√(3306² + 9083²)

(31.32°)
6,358.95 = ²√(3306² + 5,432²)

(50.6°)
4,278.58 = ²√(3306² + 2716²)

(67.66°)
3,574.04 = ²√(3306² + 1,358²)

(78.39°)
3,306.00 = ²√(3306² + 679²)

(84.13°)
3,323.38 = ²√(3306² + 339.5²)

I am not using the top values of LOS distance because of <20° declination.

The sun's distance changes by a factor of:
9,665.94 / 3,323.38 = 2.908

This means the angular measure of the sun's circle would change from 0.5° at overhead distance to 0.172° at the 20° distance.

If I used the longest <20° distance above, the angular size of the sun would change by a factor of 6. The sun's angular measure would be 0.083°.

Think on that. And please, do not reply until tomorrow. I have things to do today.

[Dale Eastman]

for your line of sight you're using a horizontal base line right? And that's flat right? And what's what's your dip adjustment? Is the horizon a bent line? How do you correct for dip on a curved/refracted base line.

https://youtu.be/d6YuEErloGs

why the suns angular size usually stays the same throughout the day... There's many videos of the suns size changing as it goes away, it has to be filmed when there's very little to no moisture in the air, though. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yeo_-1h6qUc&feature=youtu.be

You are making it very hard for me to maintain a respectful demeanor with you.

Rob Skiba is totally fucking clueless as to how lenses work. And since you keep putting his dumb shit into this discussion, you are also totally fucking clueless as to how lenses work.

[Dale Eastman]

it bends toward the denser medium. And is magnified. I've provided an experiment that demonstrates what we observe in objective reality you've only given a faulty equation based on a flat plain and straight line angles and the presumption of distances and a made up "r" value. I don't see how you've made any point that's shows evidence of a spherical earth. The "r" you assign has been debunked by the black swan video. Again your model requires a physical geographic/ geometric (meaning to measure the earth) horizon that you have yet to establish how you attain "r".

https://globeterminator.com/the-sextant-1-globe-debunker-flat-earth-proof/

I decline to follow you away from the points I previously posted.

① Admit or deny that celestial navigation has been used for over a thousand years.
② Admit or deny that celestial navigation is based upon the fact that at any given time, any object in the sky is directly over some spot on earth.

[Dale Eastman]

you envoked the sextant actually. I wanted to stay with measuring the earth. So here we go... i admit we're told in the Rockefeller funded education system that the use of the sextant dates back to when "everyone knew the earth was flat".i can't claim to know it, as knowing means knowing first-hand.
I'll admit that celestial navigation is based on a certain given time an object in the sky is over a particular spot on earth. But i also know that the dip correction is for someone on a ship to compensate for hight above the water and actual horizon, so that you get a flat horizon base-line. You do need two straight lines to make a 90⁰ angle correct? Where do you get your 90⁰from a curved surface? Where evidence of curvature? I don't think you understand how the sextant works.

gets to the point around ~39:30:00
https://youtu.be/re1gQha9hBQ

➽ I don't think you understand how the sextant works.

③ I had a sextant in my hands within the last week. How long has it been since you held a sextant?

RJJ032

[Dale Eastman]

great. That figure you're showing is a circle I'm guessing to represent a 3 dimensional sphere on a flat surface. A circle or a cross section of asphere requires a radius. How do you derive your radius? Every manual references a right triangle where the base and the object make 90⁰. This is an assumption of a flat plain labled "x" in this graph. How do you get 90⁰from a tangent when it's based on straight lines, and then curvature is added in after the fact? How do you derive your "r"? Simple question.

➽ How do you derive your "r"?

<sigh...>
Trigonometry.

Your failure to understand this point is my failure to educate you on trigonometry.

➽ Every manual references a right triangle where the base and the object make 90⁰.

Correct. And this part you "seem" to understand.

➽ This is an assumption of a flat plain labled "x" in this graph.

WRONG! The assumption and subsequent errors are yours.

You are assuming that the baseline "must" be a flat surface or on a flat surface.

Tangent
https://search.brave.com/search?q=Tangent

I've edited the image to show you.

θ

[Dale Eastman]

the tangent doesn't matter. The black swan refutes your claimed "r"

and just do you know understand you made the 90⁰ from a straight line...

i understand a tangent and a radius make a right angle but you don't have a radius.

again ive refuted your claimed "r". Is there a better argument you can make as to why you beleive your on a spinning ball?

Repeating what I already wrote:
You are making it very hard for me to maintain a respectful demeanor with you.

You don't know what you don't know. That makes you a Dunning - Krugerite.

And you are a Gish Galloper.

I'm numbering this shit to keep track of what I must drag you back to.

➽ I don't think you understand how the sextant works.

③ I had a sextant in my hands within the last week. How long has it been since you held a sextant?

④ Admit or deny: You've never held a sextant.

➽ and just do you know understand you made the 90⁰ from a straight line...

⑤ Admit or deny: You understand trigonometry requires a right triangle to do the math.

➽ i understand a tangent and a radius make a right angle but you don't have a radius.

⑥ Admit or deny: You understand C² = A² + B²

⑦ Admit or deny: You understand C = the hypotenuse. That is, the longest side of a right triangle.

⑧ Admit or deny: You understand C = ²√(A² + B²)

⑨  Admit or deny: You understand either A or B could be a radius.

①⓪ Admit or deny: You understand the attached image depicts measuring on object's angular size.

[Dale Eastman]

1.I'm only paying things that are pertinent to my claims.
4. Ive never held a sextant. It works in the same primise of a protractor. And I'm proficient with auto cad and old school drafting.
5. A right triangle doesn't have curved lines. "X" or your base.
6. Yes
7. Yes (straight lines make a right triangle)
8. Yes.
9. You've only claimed a radius. You have not given evidence to support your claimed radius.
10. It shows a diagram. Doesn't really show anything pertaining to angular size.
So again and i want a clear answer on this, for me and the viewers, where do you derive your "r" and the distances you've claimed? Just saying trig isn't an answer that's numbers on paper, and doesn't constitute evidence. It would not be sufficient in a court room.

let me spell it in wiki-terms so you can grasp my disposition to your claim.

HORIZONTAL PLANE.

What an i not understanding?

I am trying to tune into what you're thinking and why. I have to keep taking a deep breath and reminding myself I have not seen any malice on your part.

What I do see is a severe communication error.
So with some clear air in my lungs from doing some outside work, I'm going to hit the rewind button.
Terms and definitions must be stipulated so that there is no error as to what, exactly, is meant.

So I am going to start with this image.

This depiction is a slice of the universe. The eyeball looking at the universe only sees in two dimensions. The eyeball only sees what's in the plane of the universe where the universe was sliced. Do you accept?