Thork

Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« on: April 26, 2015, 01:43:59 PM »
What is the diameter of the sun? Voliva says 27 miles, Rowbotham say 32 miles


Fig 1. Voliva's model

If you use a sextant and measure the size of the sun it comes out a 32 arc minutes as you can see in the table linked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter#Use_in_astronomy

1 degree = 60 minutes of arc.
1 minute of arc = 1 nautical mile.

It's that simple.

So the sun must be 32 nautical miles across. Rowbotham is correct. Voliva has made an almighty blunder. He has assumed Rowbotham's calculation to be in statue miles and recalculated for statute miles giving 27 miles. If he had known Rowbotham's distance was already in nautical miles or worked it out himself, he'd have got 37 miles as his distance across the sun. He uses 27 miles as his starting point and deduces the distance to the sun from that to get 3000 miles. In other words, we can finally discount the Voliva model. Its wrong. Rowbotham's model is correct and we need to remember his calcs are all in nautical miles.

One more step towards a unified flat earth theory.  8)

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2015, 02:23:02 PM »
Do you agree with Rowbotham's calculation for the altitude of the sun? 

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2015, 07:17:41 PM »
If you use a sextant and measure the size of the sun it comes out a 32 arc minutes as you can see in the table linked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter#Use_in_astronomy

1 degree = 60 minutes of arc.
1 minute of arc = 1 nautical mile.

It's that simple.
Excuse me, but who told you that 1 minute of arc = 1 nautical mile and in what context?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline Wulf

  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2015, 07:26:19 PM »
markjo has a point. one minute of arch could be many different distances depending on the distance and speed of the object in question. if i am understanding this correctly.

Thork

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2015, 08:30:14 PM »
Excuse me, but who told you that 1 minute of arc = 1 nautical mile and in what context?
Youtube told me 8)

I have a source.

About 3:20 into the video. Don't come back to this thread unless you have a source as specific as this disproving my source. I don't want any moaning, any conjecture, any appeal's to authority or any attempt to discredit my source, unless you have a source for the purposes of rebuttal. I get a bit sick of your whining. Give me a source instead. A nice simple one on exactly this topic, explaining why its not 1 arc minute = 1 nautical mile.

Rama Set

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2015, 10:30:46 PM »
Wikipedia agreeeeeeees.

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2015, 10:50:09 PM »
If you use a sextant and measure the size of the sun it comes out a 32 arc minutes as you can see in the table linked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter#Use_in_astronomy

1 degree = 60 minutes of arc.
1 minute of arc = 1 nautical mile.

It's that simple.

Unless I'm misreading you, you seem to be saying that one arcminute of apparent diameter is necessarily equal to one nautical mile.  That doesn't make any sense.

A nautical mile is a minute of arc of a great circle on the Earth's surface.  That's a different sort of thing from measuring the apparent angular diameter of an object from the Earth's surface.  Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see how the two are related.

http://www.suomennavigaatioliitto.com/files/manual/mark15_25.pdf
Quote
A NAUTICAL MILE is equal to one minute of arc of a great circle.  Latitude is measured north or south from the equator along a meridian (a great circle). One minute of latitude equals one nautical mile anywhere on the earth. Longitude is measured east or west from the prime meridian (zero degrees) at Greenwich, England. It is measured along a parallel of latitude (a small circle). One minute of longitude equals one nautical mile only at the equator. Approaching the poles, one minute of longitude equals less and less of a nautical mile.

Stop blindly parroting things that you see in Youtube videos for a moment and think about it: if you went outside and measured the apparent angular size (height, in this case) of a building in the distance with a sextant at, say, one degree of arc, would you conclude that the building is 60 nautical miles tall?

Don't come back to this thread unless you have a source as specific as this disproving my source.

Jesus Christ.

Your source literally just writes "1 minute of arc = 1 nautical mile" on some scrolling text with some animations about electricity or whatever.  Hey check it out I've got some really "specific" sources here disproving your source:

Dr David Thork is terrible.  He is.
It even moves and everything.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2015, 12:25:12 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2015, 01:44:54 AM »
Excuse me, but who told you that 1 minute of arc = 1 nautical mile and in what context?
Youtube told me 8)

I have a source.

About 3:20 into the video. Don't come back to this thread unless you have a source as specific as this disproving my source. I don't want any moaning, any conjecture, any appeal's to authority or any attempt to discredit my source, unless you have a source for the purposes of rebuttal. I get a bit sick of your whining. Give me a source instead. A nice simple one on exactly this topic, explaining why its not 1 arc minute = 1 nautical mile.
I apologize.  How can I possibly refute such an impeachable source?  Bravo, Thork.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Thork

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2015, 08:40:02 PM »
If the earth is round, yes, the arc of the sun/sky doesn't equal the arc of the earth, because its a larger circle. But if the earth is flat, the diameter is 40,000km across, then the arc of the sky becomes that same diameter as a round earth. We are now inside the circle/sphere looking out. The earth is flat remember. I'm pretty sick of telling you that. Its flat. When you consider my viewpoint, remember that the earth is flat.

Rama Set

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2015, 08:50:04 PM »
If the earth is round, yes, the arc of the sun/sky doesn't equal the arc of the earth, because its a larger circle. But if the earth is flat, the diameter is 40,000km across, then the arc of the sky becomes that same diameter as a round earth. We are now inside the circle/sphere looking out. The earth is flat remember. I'm pretty sick of telling you that. Its flat. When you consider my viewpoint, remember that the earth is flat.

Oops!  You missed the point.  Angular diameter is based on two factors: the diameter of the subject and it's distance from the observer.  You can not determine the diameter to an object with only it's angular diameter.  Using the distance to the sun of 3,000 miles and the average angular diameter of 0.5 degrees, the diameter of the sun tuens out to be 26.18 miles.  So, Rowbotham is wrong.

Thork

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2015, 08:52:08 PM »
that depends wholly on where the stander is observing from.

Rama Set

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2015, 09:12:55 PM »
that depends wholly on where the stander is observing from.

Only in that it matters how far one is from the subject and what the subject's angular diameter is. Do you have a problem with Voliva's calculation of the altitude of the sun?

Thork

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2015, 09:25:39 PM »
Yes, he is wrong as I have demonstrated. keep up.

Rama Set

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2015, 11:51:04 PM »
Yes, he is wrong as I have demonstrated. keep up.

Only wrong from the perspective of someone who conflated the terrestrial coordinate system with angular diameter.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2015, 04:03:15 AM »
that depends wholly on where the stander is observing from.
Do you agree that if the earth is flat and the celestial objects are significantly closer than the RE distances we are led to believe, then the angular diameter of the sun should change as the sun moves closer or farther away from the observer during the course of the day? 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2015, 10:23:44 PM »
that depends wholly on where the stander is observing from.
Do you agree that if the earth is flat and the celestial objects are significantly closer than the RE distances we are led to believe, then the angular diameter of the sun should change as the sun moves closer or farther away from the observer during the course of the day?
Where is there a diagram of the motion of the sun across the earth during the day and measurements of the angle from different places at the same time?

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2015, 10:52:26 PM »
But if the earth is flat, the diameter is 40,000km across, then the arc of the sky becomes that same diameter as a round earth. We are now inside the circle/sphere looking out. The earth is flat remember. I'm pretty sick of telling you that. Its flat. When you consider my viewpoint, remember that the earth is flat.

I'm not arguing with you about the shape of the Earth.  I'm saying that this doesn't make any sense regardless of whether the Earth is shaped like a sphere, coin, cube, or mongoose.

If with a sextant you measured the apparent angular size of a building in the distance to be 1 degree, would you conclude that the building is 60 nautical miles tall?

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Thork

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2015, 11:06:02 PM »
You are obviously confused. Watch the youtube video again. It explains it for you in very simple terms.

Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong
« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2015, 11:51:43 PM »
You are obviously confused. Watch the youtube video again. It explains it for you in very simple terms.

If you're incapable of explaining your argument on your own, then you're probably the one who is confused.

I take you to be saying: a sextant measures the Sun's apparent diameter at 32 arcminutes, and an arcminute of apparent diameter is always equal to a nautical mile.

Round Earth or flat, this doesn't make any sense because an arcminute of apparent diameter is not equal to a nautical mile.  A nautical mile is a distance on the surface of a sphere.  Apparent diameter is how big something looks.  Those aren't related in any way.

To prove that this is true, simply take a measurement of the apparent diameter of a building with a sextant and convert to nautical miles as per your equality.  Buildings are not tens or hundreds of miles tall, so your equality must be absurd.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.