#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2014, 01:53:44 AM »
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

#### markjo

• 7023
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2014, 04:08:18 AM »
Tintagel-You say you base your views on experience and empirical evidence yet in this thread you said the altitude of the sun was 3,000 miles based on a purely mathematical model. This is inconsistent to say the least and makes it very difficult to have a clear conversation since you are effectively shifting your evidential goal posts.

False.  I can find my own latitude, and use that to measure the angle of the sun just as Eratosthenes did.  I have done this myself, these findings are based upon experience and my own understanding of geometry.  This is the process by which the altitude of the sun is found.
However, unless you live at 45 degrees latitude, you will not get the 3000 mile figure that Voliva did.  In fact, Rowbotham performed similar calculations in England (as documented in chapter 5 of ENaG) and concluded that the sun is no more than 700 miles high.
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.

#firePete

#### Rama Set

• 9914
• Round and round...
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2014, 01:45:43 PM »
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

No it won't. For all the same reasons the trigonometric method does not work for the altitude of the sun on a FE, it will not work to get your latitude. Unless you have an inconsistent distance interval between degrees.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning that a coordinate system with 180 degrees per hemiplane does not work using any trigonometric calculations.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 02:09:08 PM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2014, 03:37:31 PM »
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

No it won't. For all the same reasons the trigonometric method does not work for the altitude of the sun on a FE, it will not work to get your latitude. Unless you have an inconsistent distance interval between degrees.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning that a coordinate system with 180 degrees per hemiplane does not work using any trigonometric calculations.

Really?  The angle of polaris in my sky indicates that my latitude is around 36 degrees.  Maps agree with this.  Seems like it works just fine.

#### Rama Set

• 9914
• Round and round...
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2014, 06:16:32 PM »
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

No it won't. For all the same reasons the trigonometric method does not work for the altitude of the sun on a FE, it will not work to get your latitude. Unless you have an inconsistent distance interval between degrees.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning that a coordinate system with 180 degrees per hemiplane does not work using any trigonometric calculations.

Really?  The angle of polaris in my sky indicates that my latitude is around 36 degrees.  Maps agree with this.  Seems like it works just fine.

You are aware that you are using RE definitions if a degree and latitude right?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### jroa

• 3094
• Kentucky Gentleman
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2014, 07:02:16 PM »
You are aware that you are using RE definitions if a degree and latitude right?

So, what was the point of your argument, then?

#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2014, 07:04:35 PM »
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

No it won't. For all the same reasons the trigonometric method does not work for the altitude of the sun on a FE, it will not work to get your latitude. Unless you have an inconsistent distance interval between degrees.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning that a coordinate system with 180 degrees per hemiplane does not work using any trigonometric calculations.

Really?  The angle of polaris in my sky indicates that my latitude is around 36 degrees.  Maps agree with this.  Seems like it works just fine.

You are aware that you are using RE definitions if a degree and latitude right?

The lines of latitude and longitude may have been assigned values of degrees with the assumption that the earth is a sphere, but that doesn't make them less useful as a coordinate system.

#### Rama Set

• 9914
• Round and round...
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2014, 07:14:04 PM »
You are aware that you are using RE definitions if a degree and latitude right?

So, what was the point of your argument, then?

That Tintagel is also making assumptions about the world but is not clearly accounting for them when presenting evidence.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Rama Set

• 9914
• Round and round...
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2014, 07:24:33 PM »
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

No it won't. For all the same reasons the trigonometric method does not work for the altitude of the sun on a FE, it will not work to get your latitude. Unless you have an inconsistent distance interval between degrees.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning that a coordinate system with 180 degrees per hemiplane does not work using any trigonometric calculations.

Really?  The angle of polaris in my sky indicates that my latitude is around 36 degrees.  Maps agree with this.  Seems like it works just fine.

You are aware that you are using RE definitions if a degree and latitude right?

The lines of latitude and longitude may have been assigned values of degrees with the assumption that the earth is a sphere, but that doesn't make them less useful as a coordinate system.

It does in that the system you are using is applicable to a RE not a FE.  Calculations clearly show that you cannot have a consistent 111.2kms between degrees and a constant altitude of polaris.  In fact, the interval between degrees must increase as you go south.  Also, once you lose sight of Polaris, how do you find your latitude at that point?

You are assuming that the RE coordinate system is universally applicable.  It is not.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### markjo

• 7023
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2014, 08:26:21 PM »
The lines of latitude and longitude may have been assigned values of degrees with the assumption that the earth is a sphere, but that doesn't make them less useful as a coordinate system.
Actually, it does.  For example, the lines in this drawing are 5 degrees apart, but the spacing at the bottom changes. This makes the RET definition of 1 degree of latitude being equal to 60 nautical miles inapplicable to a FET coordinate system.
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.

#firePete

#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #50 on: February 12, 2014, 08:53:51 PM »
It does in that the system you are using is applicable to a RE not a FE.  Calculations clearly show that you cannot have a consistent 111.2kms between degrees and a constant altitude of polaris.  In fact, the interval between degrees must increase as you go south.  Also, once you lose sight of Polaris, how do you find your latitude at that point?

You are assuming that the RE coordinate system is universally applicable.  It is not.
Actually, it does.  For example, the lines in this drawing are 5 degrees apart, but the spacing at the bottom changes. This makes the RET definition of 1 degree of latitude being equal to 60 nautical miles inapplicable to a FET coordinate system.

So, one of you is saying that the spacing between the lines of latitude are consistent, and the other is saying that they are not consistent.  Which is it?  Both of you claim that the lines of latitude don't work when flattened to a plane - but there are flat maps with latitude and longitude on them available in every convenience store.  It's a coordinate system, nothing more.

I do not live in the southern hemidisc so I don't know how they find their latitude there. (I assume this is what you mean as many other round and flat earthers have said that polaris isn't visible there, I don't know for sure)
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 08:59:42 PM by Tintagel »

#### Rama Set

• 9914
• Round and round...
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #51 on: February 12, 2014, 09:27:52 PM »
Doubly bad that you cannot use Polaris to determine latitude below the equator.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### markjo

• 7023
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2014, 09:33:13 PM »
So, one of you is saying that the spacing between the lines of latitude are consistent, and the other is saying that they are not consistent.  Which is it?
We are both saying that latitude is consistent on a round earth, but not a flat one.

Quote
Both of you claim that the lines of latitude don't work when flattened to a plane - but there are flat maps with latitude and longitude on them available in every convenience store.  It's a coordinate system, nothing more.
First of all, you do understand that the "flat maps" that you are referring to are flat projections of a round earth, don't you?  Projections always introduce some sort of distortion on one axis or another.

Secondly, it's not so much that sighting Polaris can't work on flat earth, it's just that the results are not what have been observed for countless years.
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.

#firePete

#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #53 on: February 12, 2014, 10:01:08 PM »
First of all, you do understand that the "flat maps" that you are referring to are flat projections of a round earth, don't you?  Projections always introduce some sort of distortion on one axis or another.

Secondly, it's not so much that sighting Polaris can't work on flat earth, it's just that the results are not what have been observed for countless years.
I find it more reasonable that globes are spherical projections of a flat earth, but we can agree to disagree on that point.

I'm still not sure what observations you're referring to.  Sighting polaris works to determine latitude, it's just that the lines of latitude were assigned values of degrees as if the earth were a sphere.  Just because you call the measurement degrees doesn't imply rotundity, and the fact that the process was developed by round earth thinkers doesn't make it less valid on a flat earth.

#### Rama Set

• 9914
• Round and round...
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2014, 01:44:34 AM »
Polaris' position shifts one degree for every 111.2kms you travel north or south. For this to be true on a FE, Polaris' altitude would be required to change. It is exactly the same issue you run in to with the altitude of the sun. For some reason you are assuming it should work the exact same whether the Earth is round or flat.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### markjo

• 7023
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2014, 02:56:28 AM »
I'm still not sure what observations you're referring to.  Sighting polaris works to determine latitude, it's just that the lines of latitude were assigned values of degrees as if the earth were a sphere.
Let me ask you this:  Do you agree that degrees of latitude are evenly spaced 60 nautical miles apart?
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.

#firePete

#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2014, 04:47:21 AM »
Polaris' position shifts one degree for every 111.2kms you travel north or south. For this to be true on a FE, Polaris' altitude would be required to change. It is exactly the same issue you run in to with the altitude of the sun. For some reason you are assuming it should work the exact same whether the Earth is round or flat.

Not true, if the light is affected by the EA.  But that's an ongoing discussion in another thread.

#### Rama Set

• 9914
• Round and round...
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2014, 11:32:12 AM »
If there even is an EA.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Antonio

• 22
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2014, 11:41:44 AM »
Polaris' position shifts one degree for every 111.2kms you travel north or south. For this to be true on a FE, Polaris' altitude would be required to change. It is exactly the same issue you run in to with the altitude of the sun. For some reason you are assuming it should work the exact same whether the Earth is round or flat.

Not true, if the light is affected by the EA.  But that's an ongoing discussion in another thread.

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you measure sun's alititude by triangulation if you assert that light doesn't travel in a straight line ?

#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2014, 05:03:05 PM »
Polaris' position shifts one degree for every 111.2kms you travel north or south. For this to be true on a FE, Polaris' altitude would be required to change. It is exactly the same issue you run in to with the altitude of the sun. For some reason you are assuming it should work the exact same whether the Earth is round or flat.

Not true, if the light is affected by the EA.  But that's an ongoing discussion in another thread.

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you measure sun's alititude by triangulation if you assert that light doesn't travel in a straight line ?

It's an approximation.  The amount of curvature is proportional to the sun's horizontal distance from the observer. so minimizing this distance makes the most accurate approximation.  In fact, observations made at the same time on the same day at different latitudes could prove to be an effective way to measure the rate of curvature due to EA, though I strongly suspect it will be similar to what has been assumed to be the rate of earth's curvature by Eratosthenes.  I believe his measurements weren't wrong, he was simply wrong about what was doing the curving.  Still, his change in latitude was only 7 degrees or so, so triangulating the sun's altitude from this small distance may be pretty accurate.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 05:06:23 PM by Tintagel »