381
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earths magnetic field discussion
« on: April 03, 2018, 03:02:14 PM »
Can your describe the bi pole theory, or give a link, as i have not heard that one before.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
And just to clarify, this is a "Air Map" created by a round earther, but the map is more accurate for flat earth study.
If earth was a globe, the distance round its surface at 45 degrees south latitude, couldn't be greater than it is at the same latitude to the north. However, since navigators find it to be double the distance, or double the distance it should be (according to the globe earth theory), this is cast iron proof earth is flat.
Our total annual budget is $0. The allocated cartography budget is $0.
We are already giving out our little free time away from work to discuss a few matters. You aren't paying us. Why do you guys complain so much?
Yes i can,
I have beeen sailing since 1985, Gained my 1st certificate of competency as 2nd mate in 1989, and chief Officer licence in 1996, and my Masters licence in1999. I have been sailing as a Master of oil and gas tankers since 2004, so 14 years in command.
I can show a copy of my masters licence, although for obvious reasons (security and ID fraud being 2) will not show my licence number. As part of my navigational training we studied many subjects, Magnetism, correction of magnetic compasses, and the earths magnetic field.
Electronic navigational systems, such a GPS, transit sat NAV, as well as radio nav systems, nav aids, such as gyros and gyro compasses, radars, theory and understanding of them.
Navigation, celestial navigation which relies heavily on spoherical trigonometry, and principles of position fixing, as well as in depth position fixing from celestial bodies.
Surface navigation, using Rhumb lines, GFreat circles, composite great circles, and calculation of distances along different courses and to different destinations.
Calculation of vertical sextant angles to find distance from a known point, horizontal angles for the same, as well as bearings and ranges from objects.
Cartography, different projections of charts and why, Mercator, gnomonic projection etc, and how the world is charted.
I have spent years practicing celestial navigation, and it works...
As well as law, safety of life at sea, commercial and civil law, and loading of cargos and carriage of cargoes. Stability and damage control, rules of sailing and rules of the road. World wide weather patterns and the reasons for them
All of these things i have studied and understood to be able to pass my master mariners licence, of which i can provide a copy in a few hours. We are in the indonesian islands passages at present, it is late but i can provide my Master mariners licence.
Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?
If earth was a globe, the distance round its surface at 45 degrees south latitude, couldn't be greater than it is at the same latitude to the north. However, since navigators find it to be double the distance, or double the distance it should be (according to the globe earth theory), this is cast iron proof earth is flat.
I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.
That is not how things work. It was your claim, so it is your burden to demonstrate it.
I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.
That is what is expected of you. Demonstrate your positive claims. We frankly don't have the time, resources, or inclination to address everything. Asking others to prove a negative is not a valid form of debate.
QuoteGiven an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.
Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.
Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?
Are you talking about this?Quotehttps://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf
Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.
That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.
Tontogary is a classic example of someone who thinks he is going round the globe, but in reality isn't.
Apparently they are all lies, and a conspiracy. In another thread it was claimed that the sat tv boxes are doctored to make us believe they are using a satellite!
And how do satellite tvs work? I thought satellites were another misconception/conspiracy theory. If the weather is bad between your dish and the satellite, it must prove satellites are real.
Also even someone who is as blinkered as you must admit there is not that much rain or heavy clouds between the earth and the motion to obscure a signal, plus the receiving ground stations are somewhat bigger than your teeny little sky dish.
I have to admit, using satellite TV as proof of a flat Earth shows commendable nerve. What the flat Earth theory is about satellites I can't begin to imagine.
There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery. The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one. The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil. And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal? No, primitive 60's technology couldn't achieve that. However, if you could prove it happened, it wouldn't disprove flat earth, just prove NASA went to the moon. They planted a flag, yes? Why was it blowing? Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag? There isn't one. Please provide proof of the flag that's allegedly there and silence us all.
It took it's time, to follow these argument, but in the end - for me - it appears quite simple.
You know this diagram from http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm ?
The distance of the vanishing point - aka the horizon - is defined by the limited resolution of the naked eye, where lines from the observers eye E to the vanishing point H and the surface C to H build an angle less than 1 minute of degree.
Rising observers position will broaden this angle and move point H (horizon) farther away, until the 1 minute criteria is met again.
But what, if observer has "hypervision" and could resolve angles less than 1 minute.
Yes. There are many accounts in the Flat Earth literature of telescopes restoring half sunken ships across calm bodies of water, showing that they are not really behind a "hill of water".
In cases where the water is turbulent, the shinking ship effect cannot be restored, showing waves to be the cause.