[Woody]

Celestial navigation uses math that assumes the Earth is round.  It does not work for a flat surface.

Actually, there is no math necessary:

https://sextantbook.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/how-celestial-navigation-works-in-easy-steps-1/

You may well think celestial navigation is a dark science that calls for a lot of complex mathematics.  In a way that’s perfectly true because it took the work of many brilliant mathematicians to perfect the techniques mariners use to fix their position on the open sea.

But to practice the art of celestial navigation today you really don’t need much mathematical skill.  In fact you only have to be able to add and subtract – and maybe not even that now that we all have access to computers.

To explain the basic principles of celestial navigation let’s start with a crucial concept – the ‘geographical position’ of a heavenly body.

At any given moment every heavenly body is vertically above a precisely defined spot on the surface of the Earth.  So if you imagine a straight line drawn from the centre of the Earth to a star, someone standing where that line passes through the surface of the Earth would see that star directly overhead – or in their zenith.  That person will then be standing at the star’s geographical position (GP).  Its GP can be defined by its latitude (degrees north or south of the equator) and its longitude (degrees east or west of the Greenwich meridian, a line joining the North and South Geographical Poles that happens to pass through the observatory at Greenwich).

Now if the Earth did not rotate about its axis all the stars (though not the sun, moon or planets) would appear to stand still in the sky.  That would of course also mean that their GPs were fixed.  So a very simple way of navigating would be to identify the star whose GP was closest to your goal and then sail (or walk, or fly – or whatever) until that particular star was overhead.

You may say that won’t work because the Earth actually does turn.  But wait.  There are two special places on the Earth’s surface that actually do remain stationary in relation to the sky immediately above them: the North and South Geographical Poles.  So if you want to find your way to either Pole you only need to identify the star whose GP is closest to it and travel until it’s overhead.

There is math needed at night when determining position.  I have used celestial navigation on more than one occasion.  I can tell you to get anything beyond just determining latitude or direction of travel requires math that assumes a round Earth.

Read your link again.  You display a lack of reading comprehension regularly.  This is not the first time I have seen you link something that does not support what you claim.

"So if you want to find your way to either Pole you only need to identify the star whose GP is closest to it and travel until it’s overhead."

Which means you can follow the North Star and be heading north.  No math involved, but you can not determine your position.

"The height of Polaris is in fact equivalent to the observer’s latitude."

Which means you can determine your latitude and that is it.  You can not get your position without using some math and observing at least one other or more stars.

The only time you can use celestial navigation without the math to get some place is when that place happens to line up with a certain latitude.  You can not determine your position along a line of latitude or longitude without those calculations assuming a round Earth.

Like wave propagation you are talking about something I have used and have experience with. 


Edit: Wanted to add look up the difference between fix and line of position.

[Woody]

Geodetetic surveyors now are just refining measurements and not trying to prove the shape of the Earth.  Not true when we go back in time.  It was geodetic surveyors that found more evidence of the Earth shape.  Astronomers also were very interested in the shape.  People in your claimed field also study the shape.  Most people involved in the Earth sciences make predictions based on the Earth being round.  Those predictions use calculation assuming the Earth is round and are reliable and accurate.

They are only interested in the shape so much as "these slight variations in g must mean that the earth is not perfectly round". They are not interested in the earth's true shape.

If the Earth was flat errors would resonate through many different fields.  Your belief is these errors would go unnoticed.

They do go noticed. Only that it's explained away by an assortment of illusions. There have been times when the sun and moon have been above the surface of the earth during a lunar eclipse and it was called a refraction illusion.

If you recall I showed you paper where scientist were looking for the cause of 3-5mm errors for predictions.  This was for only one part of the globe and involved models for tectonic plates, tidal loading, earth tide, gravity, satellite signal delay, and others I can not think of right now.  If the Earth was flat these models would not work together and used to make fairly accurate predictions that are only 3-5mm off just for a part of the world.

Actually, a lot of prediction models for things like the tides and the appearance and path of celestial bodies are created by looking at historical records of past events and predicting when the next one will occur.

I will tell you again I have communicated with people in North Carolina from Afghanistan and Iraq using a HF radio.  If I was capable of doing this it depended on atmospheric conditions, the antenna, time of day and skip zones.  Skip zones being the area between where the wave is either traveling up or down. 

I was able to communicate with people on the other end of the world with my home phone under the assumption of a Flat Earth and the pseuodolite technologies involved. Where's my medal?

They are interested in the Earth's true shape.  If not maps would not be accurate.  It is why they learned a projection was needed to make maps.  They also needed to figure out why something that was almost perfectly vertical did not appear to be when viewed from a distance.

They do not go unnoticed do I need to link that paper again?  If it went unnoticed why did someone look into it?

You are ignoring how accurate the predictions are using models from different fields together all of which assume a round Earth. If the Earth was not round those errors would propagate and accurate predictions could not be made.

Look up how something like Kepler's laws where verified.  Simple observations and predictions being made.  The math works and matches observations.

Tides are not predicted on timelines and past events.  They change every day and predictions in my large amount of experience are very accurate and almost right to the exact minute.  I live on my boat and every day, month or year the tides do not rise and fall at the same time.

Are you seriously arguing since you can call someone across the globe that the HF radio I used used the same method?  It is likely similar or using land lines crossing the ocean.  Depending on your service you are using and how your call was routed.

[edreesmangel]

HEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!
All these discussions leads to no where, i had a simple question. we are not even talking about it anymore.

so once again by what I read earlier, THAT IS PERSPECTIVE. will perspective have any effect on the view of the telescope? Has anyone tried watching the sun after is sets with a telescope or as you say that the imperfections of the earth will obstruct the view???