Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

[Dale Eastman]

the globe is the positive claim. Flat is an actual observation of nature. If the math doesn't describe reality its bad math. But continue.

we can see how the flat model stands up. But did i not start out with "i have questions about how you conclude we live on a sphere." And "can we start out with the fundamentals" you're beating around the bush to come back to how you get your "r". Is this math going to show how you derive your "r"?

transforming flat angles with globe angles... diameter of a-b.

In this image, the 45⁰ angles are shown so that you may see where the angle of latitude is measured (center), the corresponding angle where the radius passes the parallel plane of the latitude and the corresponding angle where the radius intersects the 45⁰ tangent at the arc.

The purpose of this image is to set up to show you how the latitude on a globe affects the measure of the angle to a distant object. I will detail this math in my next reply.
0025

Note to self: He has no clue about telescope angle accuracy. And you forgot to address gravity and down.

[Dale Eastman]

note to self he doesn't realize hes presupposes the distance. And you told me to stay on this topic. Ps that was to stop your strawman attempt. Just stay on this topic we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time.

➽ he doesn't realize hes presupposes the distance

I dropped that specific presupposition when you rejected what was built upon that value. So I have been building the framework that will give that value at the correct time, by simply plugging a single value into all the equations. Did you not take algebra in high school?

As previously posted:
Please note that the lengths of Lines:
d-ra;
d-a;
d-b;
ra-a;
ra-b;

can all calculated from the length of a-b by replacing X with that value.
The length of a-b is not known at this time.

The unknown distance to Polaris can be calculated using the unknown length of line a-b once that value is known.
<end repeat>

The angle to Polaris is NOT a perfect 90°.

Vertex c = 0.00000419305702675240799500646°
One half of vertex c = 0.00000209652851337620399750323°
45° - 0.00000209652851337620399750323° = 44.99999790347148662379600249677°
90° -  0.00000209652851337620399750323° = 89.99999790347148662379600249677°

0025

[Dale Eastman]

what is this flat earth a-b? Are you starwmanning?

what value are you are you plugging in?

What were doing is measuring angles. You do realize that all measurements are done with a base line that has to be straight and level to get the angle of the apparent object, correct? That is why you use either a bubble or artificial horizon, or if you're on a ship using the actual horizon you correct for hight of eye to bring the angle to the face of the water so you can make a 90⁰ angle also called dip correction. So we are agreeing that we are measuring angles with an assumed flat surface, right?

➽ Are you starwmanning?

📖 A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. 📖

What false argument are you claiming I am refuting?
What true argument am I replacing?

➽ what is this flat earth a-b?

A comparison to a curved earth line (arc) a-b.

➽ what value are you are you plugging in?

That value is to be determined. Don't be so god damn impatient Grasshopper.

Let me RE-(re) assure you, 𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙤𝙛, 𝙖𝙨 𝙄 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙, "𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙖 𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙪𝙨" 𝙖𝙣𝙙 "𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝.
I do NOT need to prove a length to prove a radius.

➽ So we are agreeing that we are measuring angles with an assumed flat surface, right?

Wrong.

➽ all measurements are done with a base line that has to be straight and level to get the angle of the apparent object

Again, wrong.

You have just told me you still have NO CLUE about measuring angles.

Although in your defense you could be having a problem saying what you are meaning. I base this suspicion on the context of your other sentences.

There is angle of elevation and there is angle of dimension.

➽ That is why you use either a bubble or artificial horizon, or if you're on a ship using the actual horizon you correct for hight of eye to bring the angle to the face of the water so you can make a 90⁰ angle also called dip correction.

You have just presented that you have NO CLUE about how celestial navigation works.

And this makes me think you had no clue what I was writing about when I showed you where the 90° point of Polaris ends up on a flat earth.

This image from that post is a reminder for you.
j026

[Dale Eastman]

can you make a 90⁰ angle with a curved adjacent? Or by definition is an angle where 2 kinds lines or rays come together at a single point? Auto cad says you can't get an angle from a curved adjacent. How do you make multiple 90⁰angles without assuming a flat base line? Triangulation requires a base line that's horizontal. I don't think you are understanding you can't get horizontal from a sphere. That's why i past this image from a book about how to use a sextant.

Flat straight horizontal base line. Correct?

I'll accept all the math your providing if you have evidence for "r". If "r" can be falsified then something has to be of correct?

horizontal plane.

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/RJJ036.png

This is evidence for the flat base line that's required for a flat base line

How many flat base lines does a sphere have? None. There's no curve. Evidence of a globe would be curvature. Can you quantify a radius that makes any of your equation representative of your claimed geoid?

Do you pressume that stars are physical? The sun is physical? A place that you can go to, touch it? Or is it an apparent position, like a rainbow is in an apparent position?

I think that's where our problem lies. You think you're measuring tangible things. I don't make that presumption.

i posted a video that goes over how the elevation angles coincide with a flat plane with perspective taken into account. So at the very least neither proves one way or the other. However you still haven't given any evidence for r. Looking at lights in the ceiling isn't evidence for the shape of the floor.

dip or hight of eye correction. What am i wrong about?

Screencap

clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to the use of a angle measuring device.

you cannot make a 90⁰ angle using a curved base line. They take the diameter, witch requires "r". You don't have "r". Long distance photography refute 3959. This is looking worse and worse for your claim that these measurements constitute evidence of geometric curve.

I'm taking a break from you. Later I will attempt to sort through all the shit you just threw at the wall in yet another attempt to figure out what you intend as your point.

Clearly there is a communication problem going on here.

That's my assumption and I'm sticking to it so that I don't get pissed at the... Uh... Stuff you've thrown at the wall.

[Dale Eastman]

you've got a lot of assumptions and begging the question fallacies to work out before you comment back. Please take all the time you need.

➽ you've got a lot of assumptions and begging the question fallacies to work out before you comment back. Please take all the time you need.

How about you list each and every assumption you claim I have made.
How about you list each and every fallacy you claim I have made.
Please take all the time you need.

[Dale Eastman]

Spent 38 seconds to prove the British guy is a dumb duck (ad hom, didn't refute it/ hand wave dismissal) laser experiments are just one instrument we've used for measuring, plus nikon p900s and p1000s. Your claiming your measurements are from a sphere that you've yet to explain.(that's begging the question) and I've been waiting for days for you explain how your equation is evidence of any natural observation. You attain your distance to the sun by watching other celestial objects cross other celestial bodies and estimate sizes and distances neither of which can be verified. When i said let's start with the basics, it's because lights in the sky (remember we agree that if they are 3 dimensional, we would have to be able to have multiple perspectives and/ or able to touch/ measure) cannot be measured. We do angles of elevation using flat base lines. I don't know how many times i have to say this. We use flat base lines to make a 90⁰angle from the gp of the object, to the observer. That means there's no begging the question its just the observation, and the law of reflection proves that when making the base line over the ocean the base line is indeed flat and level

all this assuming they knew the size of the earth based on "erestothenes" experiment, if he or his experiment ever existed.

Are these parallel rays? No. Therefore you cannot pressume a distant sun. You could if you had parallel rays but no one has ever seen parallel rays from the sun.

In simple terms we see to far.

I'll let you watch this physics professor dodge the relevant questions and get emotional about the holes that are poked in the baal model. https://youtu.be/qLQYmve6WHc

https://youtu.be/8AGRRfJ_gS0

I am NOT going to watch either of those vids right now.

You made an accusation that I have posted fallacies.

I DEMAND YOU LIST THEM.

What is fallacy #1 you claim I made.
Why are you claiming those words of mine are fallacious.

[Dale Eastman]

its called begging the question fallacy. Every graph you've made with a circle and points along it, is begging the question. Since you don't understand that navigation and plotting ground positions is based on flat base lines. You seem to be begging the question that presupposes you're on a curved surface. Everybody that defends the globe hand wave dismisses the actual evidence presented and carries on with theoretical mathematics asserting a sphere without any actual tangible geometric evidence to support your claim. Begging the question of looking at lights in the ceiling is somehow proof of the shape of the floor, like claiming that because billiard balls are spheres, the table must be round instead of actually testing whetherthe table is flat or not. I, on the other hand, am providing photographic, video, and experimental evidence to support my claims and every time i do you do the glober thing and hand wave dismiss it. Why don't you take a day or two to actually critically go through some of the things I've posted. Because trigonometry based on right angles isn't proof of curvature. Doesn't matter how many equations you put together if it doesn't match observed reality.

I gave you the like react because you have provided some detail that helps me understand your bias and brain glitch. You are really challenging me to be polite and not treat you as most GE folks do.

I will address your post in a second reply.

𝓓𝓞 𝓝𝓞𝓣 𝓡𝓔𝓟𝓛𝓨 𝓣𝓞 𝓣𝓗𝓘𝓢 𝓟𝓞𝓢𝓣.

I'm going to give you some advice. White space matters. White space makes online text easier to read. What follows below is how I would post your words if they were my words.

White space can be added in a smartphone post. I just don't remember how I've done it on those rare times I use my phone for FecalBook posting. On the desktop holding the [Ctrl] key when hitting the [Enter] key does a line feed (CR:LF)

With all your typographic errors, I assume you are using a phone.

Unimportant side note: I will not load any FecalBook apps. I use "Facebook Container" with Firefox and go to the FB dot com web address.

° ° ° ° ° °

its called begging the question fallacy.

Every graph you've made with a circle and points along it, is begging the question.

Since you don't understand that navigation and plotting ground positions is based on flat base lines. You seem to be begging the question that presupposes you're on a curved surface.

Everybody that defends the globe hand wave dismisses the actual evidence presented and carries on with theoretical mathematics asserting a sphere without any actual tangible geometric evidence to support your claim.

Begging the question of looking at lights in the ceiling is somehow proof of the shape of the floor, like claiming that because billiard balls are spheres, the table must be round instead of actually testing whetherthe table is flat or not.

I, on the other hand, am providing photographic, video, and experimental evidence to support my claims and every time i do you do the glober thing and hand wave dismiss it.

Why don't you take a day or two to actually critically go through some of the things I've posted. Because trigonometry based on right angles isn't proof of curvature.

Doesn't matter how many equations you put together if it doesn't match observed reality.

° ° ° ° ° °

[Dale Eastman]

not replying just adding one more thing for you to understand celestial navigation.
https://youtu.be/ssb5c8N5m-Y

https://youtu.be/ny9-5AXaAl4

This is you throwing more shit at the wall to see if you can get any to stick:
Quoting from the link in your 29 1038 post:
All maps are flat. Earth is flat. You can only get elevation angle 📐 from a flat plane, you can not get an elevation angle measurement from a sphere earth.

<sigh...> This does indeed show me what your brain glitch is and what you are obsessing about.

➽ its called begging the question fallacy.

📖In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petitio principii) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. 📖

➽ Every graph you've made with a circle and points along it, is begging the question.

I accuse you of that very same begging the question with every flat earth proof you have posted. That knife cuts both ways.

➽ Since you don't understand that navigation and plotting ground positions is based on flat base lines. You seem to be begging the question that presupposes you're on a curved surface.

Your bias and assumptions have just been put on display.

As is your ignorance. By "ignorance" I specifically mean that which you are deliberately choosing to ignore.

And this is you attempting D⁵ - Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail. You do not want to understand the points I'm making about angles... So I will be forced to break the logic down into even smaller bits. That will be upcoming. As I said, I'm archiving this discussion so I can refer back to things written by both of us.

➽ Everybody that defends the globe hand wave dismisses the actual evidence presented and carries on with theoretical mathematics asserting a sphere without any actual tangible geometric evidence to support your claim.

You are not presenting evidence. You are presenting opinion. The opinion you are presenting is more often not even your own opinion. I have not read you explaining in your own words what you intend to convey.

I spent IIRC 38 seconds listening to your Brit guy prove he is a dumb fuck. That, along with your drawn image, (that I actually saved to my computer) gives me a clue as to where your brain glitch is.

➽ Begging the question of looking at lights in the ceiling is somehow proof of the shape of the floor, like claiming that because billiard balls are spheres, the table must be round instead of actually testing whetherthe table is flat or not.

<shakes head in disbelief at the derp.>

➽ I, on the other hand, am providing photographic, video, and experimental evidence to support my claims and every time i do you do the glober thing and hand wave dismiss it.

Don't call me by your maiden name.

➽ Why don't you take a day or two to actually critically go through some of the things I've posted.

I would write "ditto" but you didn't understand the first time through so I will attempt to break things down to even simpler for you.

➽ Because trigonometry based on right angles isn't proof of curvature.

That claim tells me you have NOT been paying attention.

➽ Doesn't matter how many equations you put together if it doesn't match observed reality.

You are claiming that you don't know how to measure reality. You are claiming that your eyes are more accurate than measuring instruments.

Let me re- RE- (re) assure you, 𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙤𝙛, 𝙖𝙨 𝙄 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙, "𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙖 𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙪𝙨" 𝙖𝙣𝙙 "𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝.
I do NOT need to prove a length to prove a radius.

See attached image.
j001

[Dale Eastman]

to ignore information makes you ignorant. To refuse information based on how it makes you feel is a logical fallacy in regards to the veracity of the information. I can only lead the horse to the water, i can't make you drink. All maps are based on the equitorial plane. The video from above the 44 gov documents explains this but if you refuse to watch what i present or to question the thinks you were taught you cannot grow. And i don't think it's worth my time to keep going over this ridiculous graphic and claim that you can make a right angle using a curved adjacent witch you can try it in autocad and it will tell you the same thing. So show me evidence that you can have a right triangle using a curved base line. Or spend some time and watch the plethora of evidence in the videos that ive shown, that you can't just search because YouTube algorithms won't feed them to you.

➽ All maps are based on the equitorial plane.

In your own words, tell me what an "equitorial plane" is.

[Dale Eastman]

image

image

image

image

The angle measurements are done on a flat plane. I don't know how else to explain this to you. You just seem to actually be dunning Krugering just because you've held a sextant doesn't mean you understand the principles.

no you need to prove radius to prove radius.

angular measurements are done based on a flat equatorial plane.

Spent 38 seconds to prove the British guy is a dumb duck (ad hom, didn't refute it/ hand wave dismissal) laser experiments are just one instrument we've used for measuring, plus nikon p900s and p1000s. Your claiming your measurements are from a sphere that you've yet to explain.(that's begging the question) and I've been waiting for days for you explain how your equation is evidence of any natural observation. You attain your distance to the sun by watching other celestial objects cross other celestial bodies and estimate sizes and distances neither of which can be verified. When i said let's start with the basics, it's because lights in the sky (remember we agree that if they are 3 dimensional, we would have to be able to have multiple perspectives and/ or able to touch/ measure) cannot be measured. We do angles of elevation using flat base lines. I don't know how many times i have to say this. We use flat base lines to make a 90⁰angle from the gp of the object, to the observer. That means there's no begging the question its just the observation, and the law of reflection proves that when making the base line over the ocean the base line is indeed flat and level

We'll call your equation 'x'. So if 'x' then "r". If not "r" then not 'x'. Show me how 'x' is "r".

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Lemme repeat:

➽ All maps are based on the equitorial plane.

In your own words, tell me what an "equitorial plane" is.

<self-censored>

[Dale Eastman]

is there a problem with pulling definitions and pictures to qualify my understanding of topics rather than typing a novel?

and to say im hand wave dismissing your statements is disingenuous, I've given evidence as to why your claim is irronious. You only have an equation using angels of straight lines both from the observer to the object, from the object to its gp, and from that gp to the observer. I'm waiting to see how the angles you obtained were obtained using a curved base line.

you haven't said you were wrong about dip correction being to account for highth of eye of the observer, btw.

➽ is there a problem with pulling definitions and pictures to qualify my understanding of topics rather than typing a novel?

Yes there is a problem with you copy-pasting instead of writing your own words. Your copy paste DOES NOT PROVE you understand what you are copy pasting.

Lemme repeat:

➽ All maps are based on the equitorial plane.

In your own words, tell me what an "equitorial plane" is.

➽ We'll call your equation 'x'.

[Dale Eastman]

the equatorial plane is if you were to take the globe and cut it in half at the equator giving you a plain on which to plot angles on, as it cannot be done using the outside of a sphere because you need a flat base line in order to make an angle. Now will you look up what dip correction is so you can admit I'm right about hight of eye correction?

Hypotenuse BS.

➽ All maps are based on the equitorial plane.

Now please explain how a map based on "the equitorial plane" would be accurate enough for me to use in navigation.

[Dale Eastman]

because the angles match up with the gleasons map, too. There's just discrepancies in the south due to the fact that if you wrap the gleason map over a ball you have to alter the longitude lines in the south and distort the southern continents in order to make Antarctica seem like a continent on the bottom of a ball.

You:
➽ All maps are based on the equitorial plane.

Me:
Now please explain how a map based on "the equitorial plane" would be accurate enough for me to use in navigation.

You:
➽ There's just discrepancies in the south
➽ All maps are flat.

Please mark "South" on this map so I know where, exactly, these discrepancies are.
j028

[Dale Eastman]

the discrepancies come from the globe not the gleason. Because they're not going based on the gleason anymore there's magnetic declination. Because the globe doesn't match reality.

this is why capitan cook traveled 60,000 miles or more trying to circumscribe Antarctica. And the Antarctic treaty put in place, what started this while conversation.

well if north is the center and there's a circle that's the equator south is the outer latitudes, the longitudinal lines cuffed on the globe, that's why ships sailing in the south have to account for magnetic declination. Meaning they have to correct to the north.

➽ the discrepancies come from the globe not the gleason.

Does this mean you are claiming I can use Gleason's map as is to navigate an airship from one place to another on (above) the earth?

➽ there's a circle that's the equator south is the outer latitudes

Why is Gleason's map marked with degrees of latitude?

[Dale Eastman]

what do you think they were using before they fooled everyone with the globe nonsense? Because if your at 30⁰north, that means of you look at polaris it's 30⁰in the sky, if your 60⁰north, it's 60⁰in the sky. Is it hard to imagine the powers that be are hiding things by using the globe model that cuts off areas of the gleason map?

For more on that subject
https://youtu.be/YvZ3tMqyjHo

I asked you two questions. You have answered neither.

So I will ask them one at a time.

Does this mean you are claiming I can use Gleason's map as is to navigate an airship from one place to another on (above) the earth?