Show Posts
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.
You didn't answer the question. Do you think we've gotten better at high seas navigation since 150+ years ago?
I don't think things have changed that much in regards to accuracy and speed, no.
On navigation:
https://books.google.com › books ›
The Globalization of Knowledge in History
"Celestial navigation as practiced by the military was not perfected until the invention of the chronometer at the end of the 18th century."
Lowtech Magazine: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/01/satellite-nav-1.html
"More than two centuries ago, it was possible to very accurately pinpoint your position on earth by means of 'satellites'.
Man has navigated across the globe by means of satellites for thousands of years – however, until the mid twentieth century, these were not GPS-satellites, but stars. In reality, the sun and the stars aren’t satellites of the Earth, but celestial navigation is based on a precopernican world view (the earth was believed to be the centre of the universe). This may sound a little outdated, but this system was perfected to such an extent that in the second half of the eighteenth century it was almost as accurate as the present-day GPS. Moreover, it was much more robust."
On cruise ship speeds:
From a 2021article: "The average speed of a cruise ship is 18 to 22 knots (20 to 25 miles per hour). The maximum speed of a cruise ship is around three knots faster than its average cruising speed."
From a CNN article on the Titanic: "At the time, the RMS Titanic was the largest passenger ship afloat. The ship's length was 882 feet, 9 inches, and it weighed 46,328 tons. Its top speed was 23 knots."
You'd think nothing has changed since the 1890s with respect to how we can navigate the oceans. SMH.
Seeing as you have not provided any ship logs, I don't see how you can confidently assume anything.
The calculated of speed is s = d/t and requires a known distance. Distances are fundamentally in contention in this discussionIf you say that distances are in contention, then you must have some evidence, right? Just give us all an example. Saying something without any real world experience isn't satisfactory. It's non-Zetetic. My contention, after crossing the earth's oceans countless times, is that the distances ARE NOT in contention. We know where those shallow reefs are. Our scheduled arrival times after a voyage of many thousands of miles can be very accurate when King Neptune allows it and doesn't throw bad weather our way. Without any examples or evidence your arguments just don't hold any water!
These ships seem to have had trouble: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sea_Travel_in_the_South
If we leave the distance that light travels on the December solstice constant and try to determine what time sunrise would be on the June solstice we get position 'B'.
Can you elaborate/show your work on this? Not disagreeing, I just don't comprehend it.
My original question still has not been answered and can be posed re the picture of sailboat and skyline posted above. I can see the water for miles, and the tops of the mountain/buildings. If I draw a side view diagram, the rays come up from the water and down from the building/mountain tops meet at my eye. What happened to the light rays between? No haze, no big waves.
Wow. Are you going to back that up with any credible source to substantiate that completely made up claim?
Not all claims (or in this case, historical facts) are “made up” just because you are unfamiliar with them.
It’s in the word itself! Gyro-scope! I encourage you to do some research on the gyroscope, its origin as well as the etymology of the word.
I am saying you are not in Argentina, never have been in Argentina, and would have no freaking clue about what any particular Argentinian would be observing at any particular point in time.
As soon as you can account for everyone at the same time, come back and discuss this more in depth.But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.
All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.
The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.
As soon as you can account for everyone at the same time, come back and discuss this more in depth.But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.
All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.
The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.
All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.
The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.
Yeah, and here we go.
Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.
They changed apparent position also, I guess.
Oh, you are claiming I am mistaken?Wait a minute.
I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?
Not the first time you've been mistaken, won't be the last.
According to this debunking site, you are wrong and I am right.
https://flatearth.ws/sun-apparent-size
Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.
Wait a minute.
I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?
....
Please show the colon in the 2nd amendment.
