#### totallackey

##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #40 on: May 19, 2020, 03:26:07 PM »
To map your findings onto a sphere .

Exactly.  You take a reading of an angle with a sextant. You then use math to plot this onto a sphere to find your position.

If you try and map the angle directly it to a plane, it doesn't work.

Thus, the shape of the earth is a sphere.

You wrote earlier that the angles are plotted onto flat charts.

Even my great uncle, who used a sextant in WWII in the Pacific Theater, showed me a sextant and showed me to use it.

He drew all the angles on a flat piece of paper.

He didn't use a sphere.

I think you are getting confused about what plot onto a sphere means.  Let me try and be more precise in my wording.

You use a sextant to measure the angles of the heavenly bodies you are measuring.

You take these angles and use a formula to mathematically transform them into a set of spherical co-ordinates.

You can then take these spherical co-ordinates and use a pen to draw them onto a physical map, or a globe, or any other surface you can reach.
But you observed the celestial sphere (i.e., the cylinder above you).

When you plot on a piece of paper, you are not plotting on a sphere.

#### JSS

• 844
• Math is math!
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #41 on: May 19, 2020, 03:33:22 PM »
I think you are getting confused about what plot onto a sphere means.  Let me try and be more precise in my wording.

1. You use a sextant to measure the angles of the heavenly bodies you are measuring.

2. You take these angles and use a formula to mathematically transform them into a set of spherical co-ordinates.

3. You can then take these spherical co-ordinates and use a pen to draw them onto a physical map, or a globe, or any other surface you can reach.
But you observed the celestial sphere (i.e., the cylinder above you).

When you plot on a piece of paper, you are not plotting on a sphere.

A sphere is not a cylinder.

Step 2 is done with math, it transforms the angle onto a sphere. With numbers. Just a calculator.

Step 3 is where you take the result and draw it on something

You are thinking you go from step 1 to step 3, but that is missing step 2.

#### totallackey

##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #42 on: May 19, 2020, 03:37:40 PM »
I think you are getting confused about what plot onto a sphere means.  Let me try and be more precise in my wording.

1. You use a sextant to measure the angles of the heavenly bodies you are measuring.

2. You take these angles and use a formula to mathematically transform them into a set of spherical co-ordinates.

3. You can then take these spherical co-ordinates and use a pen to draw them onto a physical map, or a globe, or any other surface you can reach.
But you observed the celestial sphere (i.e., the cylinder above you).

When you plot on a piece of paper, you are not plotting on a sphere.

A sphere is not a cylinder.

Step 2 is done with math, it transforms the angle onto a sphere. With numbers. Just a calculator.

Step 3 is where you take the result and draw it on something

You are thinking you go from step 1 to step 3, but that is missing step 2.
Everything above us appears as if it is in a cylinder, as it would above any x/y coordinate plane.

That is indisputable math.

Period.

The reason for this is that what we see above us is plotted onto a sphere or dome.

#### JSS

• 844
• Math is math!
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #43 on: May 19, 2020, 03:47:51 PM »
Everything above us appears as if it is in a cylinder, as it would above any x/y coordinate plane.

That is indisputable math.

Period.

The reason for this is that what we see above us is plotted onto a sphere or dome.

Going back full circle, a sextant's ability to determine your position on a globe, using a spherical celestial reference would indicate that the heavens are in fact, not a cylinder.

I'm pretty sure I've asked you this before, but how do you plot a sextants measurements onto this x/y cylinder?

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #44 on: May 19, 2020, 04:04:39 PM »
Everything above us appears as if it is in a cylinder, as it would above any x/y coordinate plane.

That is indisputable math.

Period.

The reason for this is that what we see above us is plotted onto a sphere or dome.

Going back full circle, a sextant's ability to determine your position on a globe, using a spherical celestial reference would indicate that the heavens are in fact, not a cylinder.

I'm pretty sure I've asked you this before, but how do you plot a sextants measurements onto this x/y cylinder?

A sextant has no ability to determine position on a globe . It used for measuring an angle . It's basic geometry and that is what it does .

Applying spherical trig is not the sextants ability. Applying spherical maths allows people to plot measured angles on a globe representation of earth irrespective of the fact that it is not a globe.You could do the same with any shape . Doing so converts what the sextant measures into a mathematical model which has no basis in reality .

#### JSS

• 844
• Math is math!
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #45 on: May 19, 2020, 04:27:11 PM »
Everything above us appears as if it is in a cylinder, as it would above any x/y coordinate plane.

That is indisputable math.

Period.

The reason for this is that what we see above us is plotted onto a sphere or dome.

Going back full circle, a sextant's ability to determine your position on a globe, using a spherical celestial reference would indicate that the heavens are in fact, not a cylinder.

I'm pretty sure I've asked you this before, but how do you plot a sextants measurements onto this x/y cylinder?

A sextant has no ability to determine position on a globe . It used for measuring an angle . It's basic geometry and that is what it does .

Applying spherical trig is not the sextants ability. Applying spherical maths allows people to plot measured angles on a globe representation of earth irrespective of the fact that it is not a globe.You could do the same with any shape . Doing so converts what the sextant measures into a mathematical model which has no basis in reality .

A sextant can't "apply spherical trig" any more than a ruler or a potato can, it's just a tool.  It gives you the numbers.

And you can not in fact, do it on any shape. The math for turning sextant angles into coordinates uses spherical math and that does not work on any other geometric shape.  If it worked on a plane, it would be called planar math. This is not the case no matter how many times you say it.

You can claim it has no basis in reality, but every sailor would disagree. They work, they have worked for hundreds of years.

#### BoatBum

• 9
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #46 on: May 20, 2020, 06:51:13 PM »
Okay, I'm the one who started this.  This will be my final input.  But I'd like to make a few last points/clarifications:

1) I guess in the beginning I should have defined terms.  What I mean my "celestial navigation" is the final product of years of smart people working on this problem of using a sextant, a chronometer, and carefully developed tables or computers/calculators to find your position at sea.  The math required to do so is spherical trigonometry.  This is a fact.  Spherical trig is used because you are finding your position on a sphere. So, my definition of "celestial navigation" is the common system in worldwide use before the advent of electronic navigation systems like GPS, LORAN, DECCA, etc.
2) It is true that people have been using other kinds of celestial navigation for millennia.  The indigenous navigators of the South Pacific are particularly famous.  (Read the book about them: "We, the Navigators" by David Lewis - fascinating!)  Even in more modern ages there is a "lunar method" that does not require a chronometer.  The famous sea captain, Joshua Slocum, who was the first person to sail single-handed around the world in 1895-98 reportedly used that method, but I understand it is extraordinarily complicated.  However Slocum spent years before that famous voyage as a regular sea captain, so he had the experience & knowledge.
3) The example I gave of a large spherical triangle based on the pole and the equator was just that, an example.  One easily imagined in someone's mind.  In real life celestial navigation involves solving many different spherical triangles, some big, some small.  There are an infinite number of possible spherical triangles on the surface of a sphere, just like there are an infinite number of potential flat triangles on a plane.  I was just giving an example.  Don't get hung up on that.
4) It's also true that navigators use flat maps (charts) at sea, not a globe.  BUT, BUT, BUT that's because flat maps are much more convenient, AND over the scale of the typical marine chart the differences between a flat Mercator projection chart and the real spherical world are trivial.  But that is for the same reason that when you are standing on shore looking at the horizon - it looks flat.  It's NOT FLAT!  But the curvature is so subtle that the human eye and brain cannot detect it.  Similarly over the distances covered by a typical chart "correcting" for the fact that this is a flat representation of a small portion of a sphere is just unneeded.  BUT for crossing entire oceans, then it matters.  You then use a great circle course, which when plotted on a standard Mercator projection chart ends up looking like a "longer" curved line, but in the real world is the shortest distance.  The ONLY great circle routes when plotted on a Mercator chart are still straight lines are at the Equator headed due east or west or when traveling absolutely due north/south along a line of longitude.  All other great circle routes on a standard chart will look like a curved line.  In an earlier post I mentioned Charles Lindbergh.  Before his historic New York to Paris flight, he went to the main New York City public library and stretched a string on a very large globe they had there (I understand it was 4-5 feet in diameter) between New York and Paris.  Since he could not take a globe with him in his airplane, he took careful notes as to where he needed to be for each stage of his flight to follow a great circle course.  And in almost every book I've read about Lindbergh and his flight, there is a chart of his course across the Atlantic plotted on a Mercator projection chart of the Atlantic ocean.  The course looks like a curved line.  In reality, up in the air, it was not - it was a straight-as-he-could-do-it straight Great Circle line to Paris.
4) And again, all those crusty old sea captains who had to do celestial never fessed up?  And none of them ever found the "ice wall" circling the flat earth?  And since the southern oceans were at one point heavily sailed by whalers (thankfully that's over) you think one of them would have noticed an endless wall of ice?
5) And I need at least mention another inconvenient fact about celestial that I haven't yet mentioned.  Celestial is also based heavily on a bunch of smart astronomers figuring out precisely where the "geographic point" is for all the celestial bodies used for navigation are at any given time.  The celestial bodies are: sun, moon, major planets, and about 20 of the brightest stars.  The principle is using the angle measured by a sextant and a chronometer to calculate where you are compared to the geographic point of the celestial object you are using at that exact point in time.  (Given the rotation of the Earth, for every 4 seconds you are off on your time measurement your calculated position is off by a mile of longitude.)  The geographic point is where the celestial object would be directly over your head.  If the object is low on the horizon from the navigator's perspective the geographic point could be thousands of miles away.  That's not a problem, but then the use of spherical trig is mandatory or else the error involved would make the effort pointless.  Plus, that entire process of calculating and then incorporating the geographic point for all those celestial bodies into the tables or calculators/computers used is also based on the earth being a globe.  None of those astronomers are flat-earthers.  So geographic points are yet another critical part of celestial navigation that relies on the Earth being a sphere.
6) To the FE people who have replied, it strikes me that none have you have carefully thought about what I and others have said about celestial navigation.  Your response seems to be the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "Na-Na-Na-Na" when someone is telling you something you don't want to hear.
7) And no FE responder has explained why the distances required for an around-the-world sailing race would be 2-3 times longer based on the common FE model than they really are. And, yes, the sailors would notice that sort of thing.
Finally - Celestial navigation works.  It's worked for centuries.  Long before NASA and at least since the 1760s by every sea captain from every seafaring nation, regardless of politics, religion.  The math required is spherical trigonometry.  It's spherical trigonometry because the earth is a sphere.  No one would bother using the complexity of spherical trig if it wasn't needed.  Be intellectually honest and get over it.  I'm going sailing.

#### GreatATuin

• 294
• It's turtles all the way down
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #47 on: May 21, 2020, 01:01:59 PM »

Everything above us appears as if it is in a cylinder, as it would above any x/y coordinate plane.

That is indisputable math.

Period.

It simply doesn't.

Just look at star trails showing the celestial equator: https://earthsky.org/todays-image/composite-photo-star-trails-show-celestial-equator . How do you get that from a cylinder?

Star trails pictures are something anyone can do with fairly basic equipment, maybe not a low-end point-and-shoot or a smartphone but nothing exceptional, just a decent DSLR and a tripod. If you don't live very close to the poles you'll be able to see the celestial equator.
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

#### totallackey

##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #48 on: May 21, 2020, 02:06:42 PM »

Everything above us appears as if it is in a cylinder, as it would above any x/y coordinate plane.

That is indisputable math.

Period.

It simply doesn't.

Just look at star trails showing the celestial equator: https://earthsky.org/todays-image/composite-photo-star-trails-show-celestial-equator . How do you get that from a cylinder?

Star trails pictures are something anyone can do with fairly basic equipment, maybe not a low-end point-and-shoot or a smartphone but nothing exceptional, just a decent DSLR and a tripod. If you don't live very close to the poles you'll be able to see the celestial equator.

#### totallackey

##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #49 on: May 21, 2020, 02:52:55 PM »
Okay, I'm the one who started this.  This will be my final input.  But I'd like to make a few last points/clarifications:

1) I guess in the beginning I should have defined terms.  What I mean my "celestial navigation" is the final product of years of smart people working on this problem of using a sextant, a chronometer, and carefully developed tables or computers/calculators to find your position at sea.  The math required to do so is spherical trigonometry.  This is a fact.  Spherical trig is used because you are finding your position on a sphere. So, my definition of "celestial navigation" is the common system in worldwide use before the advent of electronic navigation systems like GPS, LORAN, DECCA, etc.
Spherical trig is used because of the celestial sphere.
2) It is true that people have been using other kinds of celestial navigation for millennia.  The indigenous navigators of the South Pacific are particularly famous.  (Read the book about them: "We, the Navigators" by David Lewis - fascinating!)  Even in more modern ages there is a "lunar method" that does not require a chronometer.  The famous sea captain, Joshua Slocum, who was the first person to sail single-handed around the world in 1895-98 reportedly used that method, but I understand it is extraordinarily complicated.  However Slocum spent years before that famous voyage as a regular sea captain, so he had the experience & knowledge.
An entire additional paragraph that actually states little...
3) The example I gave of a large spherical triangle based on the pole and the equator was just that, an example.  One easily imagined in someone's mind.  In real life celestial navigation involves solving many different spherical triangles, some big, some small.  There are an infinite number of possible spherical triangles on the surface of a sphere, just like there are an infinite number of potential flat triangles on a plane.  I was just giving an example.  Don't get hung up on that.
You mean hung up on all these spherical triangles that don't exist...

Don't worry...
4) It's also true that navigators use flat maps (charts) at sea, not a globe.  BUT, BUT, BUT that's because flat maps are much more convenient, AND over the scale of the typical marine chart the differences between a flat Mercator projection chart and the real spherical world are trivial.  But that is for the same reason that when you are standing on shore looking at the horizon - it looks flat.  It's NOT FLAT!  But the curvature is so subtle that the human eye and brain cannot detect it.  Similarly over the distances covered by a typical chart "correcting" for the fact that this is a flat representation of a small portion of a sphere is just unneeded.  BUT for crossing entire oceans, then it matters.  You then use a great circle course, which when plotted on a standard Mercator projection chart ends up looking like a "longer" curved line, but in the real world is the shortest distance.  The ONLY great circle routes when plotted on a Mercator chart are still straight lines are at the Equator headed due east or west or when traveling absolutely due north/south along a line of longitude.  All other great circle routes on a standard chart will look like a curved line.  In an earlier post I mentioned Charles Lindbergh.  Before his historic New York to Paris flight, he went to the main New York City public library and stretched a string on a very large globe they had there (I understand it was 4-5 feet in diameter) between New York and Paris.  Since he could not take a globe with him in his airplane, he took careful notes as to where he needed to be for each stage of his flight to follow a great circle course.  And in almost every book I've read about Lindbergh and his flight, there is a chart of his course across the Atlantic plotted on a Mercator projection chart of the Atlantic ocean.  The course looks like a curved line.  In reality, up in the air, it was not - it was a straight-as-he-could-do-it straight Great Circle line to Paris.
Those great circle lines you write about are the translations of the celestial sphere to the flat earth chart.
4) And again, all those crusty old sea captains who had to do celestial never fessed up?  And none of them ever found the "ice wall" circling the flat earth?  And since the southern oceans were at one point heavily sailed by whalers (thankfully that's over) you think one of them would have noticed an endless wall of ice?
Captain Cook - "The ice extended east and west, far beyond the reach of our sight while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected by the ice to a considerable height."
5) And I need at least mention another inconvenient fact about celestial that I haven't yet mentioned.  Celestial is also based heavily on a bunch of smart astronomers figuring out precisely where the "geographic point" is for all the celestial bodies used for navigation are at any given time.  The celestial bodies are: sun, moon, major planets, and about 20 of the brightest stars.  The principle is using the angle measured by a sextant and a chronometer to calculate where you are compared to the geographic point of the celestial object you are using at that exact point in time.  (Given the rotation of the Earth, for every 4 seconds you are off on your time measurement your calculated position is off by a mile of longitude.)  The geographic point is where the celestial object would be directly over your head.  If the object is low on the horizon from the navigator's perspective the geographic point could be thousands of miles away.  That's not a problem, but then the use of spherical trig is mandatory or else the error involved would make the effort pointless.  Plus, that entire process of calculating and then incorporating the geographic point for all those celestial bodies into the tables or calculators/computers used is also based on the earth being a globe.  None of those astronomers are flat-earthers.  So geographic points are yet another critical part of celestial navigation that relies on the Earth being a sphere.
Who were the smart astronomers when they first started doing it?

Got some names?
6) To the FE people who have replied, it strikes me that none have you have carefully thought about what I and others have said about celestial navigation.  Your response seems to be the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "Na-Na-Na-Na" when someone is telling you something you don't want to hear.
Actually, it seems that way to any person when their argument is blown to bits.
7) And no FE responder has explained why the distances required for an around-the-world sailing race would be 2-3 times longer based on the common FE model than they really are. And, yes, the sailors would notice that sort of thing.
Maybe cause they wouldn't be 2-3 times longer?
Finally - Celestial navigation works.  It's worked for centuries.  Long before NASA and at least since the 1760s by every sea captain from every seafaring nation, regardless of politics, religion.  The math required is spherical trigonometry.  It's spherical trigonometry because the earth is a sphere.  No one would bother using the complexity of spherical trig if it wasn't needed.  Be intellectually honest and get over it.  I'm going sailing.
It's spherical trigonometry based on celestial sphere, translated to a flat earth chart.

Just like reality.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2020, 04:00:49 PM by totallackey »

#### existoid

• 135
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #50 on: May 21, 2020, 04:57:43 PM »

7) And no FE responder has explained why the distances required for an around-the-world sailing race would be 2-3 times longer based on the common FE model than they really are. And, yes, the sailors would notice that sort of thing.
Maybe cause they wouldn't be 2-3 times longer?

I am not familiar with the details of navigation and boating, and I tend to not post on anything unless I can personally grasp it.  And this is something I can certainly comprehend. Just a modicum of spatial reasoning can show it with a thought experiment:

Imagine the globe model of the earth that shows lines of latitude. Imagine looking at the north pole. Notice how all the latitudes get smaller the further north they go? Now, turn it over and look at the south pole where Antarctica is shown. Again, the the latitudes get smaller as they approach the pole, each one further south (instead of north, this time).

This means that if the globe model is accurate, circumnavigating the planet along the Tropic of Capricorn (the latitude halfway between the equator and S. pole) and the Tropic of Cancer (the latitude between equator and N. pole) is the same distance (yes, I know that landmasses are in the way, pretend they're not for this thought experiment, or that you travel overland for those portions).

However, on the FE models as depicted on this website, the Tropic of Capricorn would take a MUCH longer time to travel around to meet back where you started. It's a far bigger circle - hence it would take a lot longer going the same speed.

Hence, BoatBum's comment. The problem that the FE model needs to wrestle with and provide a satisfactory answer for is that sailors don't report significantly longer travel times in the southern hemisphere.

One possible answer to this that have been brought up in this thread is that ships are simply traveling much faster, and the sailors don't know how fast they're going. But that idea has been responded to in great detail as virtually impossible and impractical - sailors do know their speed.

#### BoatBum

• 9
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #51 on: May 21, 2020, 08:01:29 PM »
Ah, I love selective quotes.  Total Lackey is quoting from the accounts of Cook's second voyage.  Please read the entire section.  He was referring to what was called then "field ice" = floating pieces of ice of varying sizes, nowadays called pack ice.  Cook went on to lament that the ice prevented him from sailing further south, and he speculated that beyond the pack ice lay a land which contained the not-yet-discovered South Pole.  Keep in mind that from the deck of a ship all you can see is to about 8 miles away under perfect clear sky conditions.  After that it's over the horizon.  So he turned around and headed north.  Thus is all from page 160 of the accounts of Cook's second voyage.  Sure doesn't sound like a guy who just found an ice wall that stretched endlessly around the entire flat earth, now does it?

#### totallackey

##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #52 on: May 22, 2020, 10:11:56 AM »
Ah, I love selective quotes.  Total Lackey is quoting from the accounts of Cook's second voyage.  Please read the entire section.  He was referring to what was called then "field ice" = floating pieces of ice of varying sizes, nowadays called pack ice.  Cook went on to lament that the ice prevented him from sailing further south, and he speculated that beyond the pack ice lay a land which contained the not-yet-discovered South Pole.  Keep in mind that from the deck of a ship all you can see is to about 8 miles away under perfect clear sky conditions.  After that it's over the horizon.  So he turned around and headed north.  Thus is all from page 160 of the accounts of Cook's second voyage.  Sure doesn't sound like a guy who just found an ice wall that stretched endlessly around the entire flat earth, now does it?
"It was ... an obstruction of such character as to leave no doubt in my mind as to our future proceedings, for we might as well sail through the cliffs of Dover as to penetrate such a mass.

It would be impossible to conceive a more solid-looking mass of ice; not the smallest appearance of any rent or fissure could we discover throughout its whole extent, and the intensely bright sky beyond it but too plainly indicated the great distance to which it reached southward."

—Sir James Clark Ross

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 70
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #53 on: May 22, 2020, 12:48:44 PM »
Ross and Cook were sailing around in wooden boats in the 18th and 19th Centuries respectively.  They didn't have access to skidoos, dog-sleds C-47s and De Havilland Twin Otters.

You might wish to consider further works of research (and television?) in the 20th and 21st Centuries.  Could I suggest Pole to Pole (Michael Palin, BBC Books 1993) and the TV catalogue of Sir David Attenborough?

#### Dr Van Nostrand

• 264
• There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #54 on: May 22, 2020, 09:26:06 PM »
I have spent some time on boats also. They do use flat Maps. But they have a different map for the Southern Hemisphere and a different map for the Northern Hemisphere.

The mariners' operating in the Southern Hemisphere know their actual, physical travel distances as accurately as Mariners operating in the North.

I've never seen a flat Earth Map that accurately depicts travel distances in the southern hemisphere.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

Are you a fucking drunk? Are you retarded? Are you autistic? You are a fucking idiot and you should never make a topic on this board again and I'm fucking serious.

#### BoatBum

• 9
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #55 on: May 24, 2020, 03:59:22 AM »
I forgot about an interesting “around-the-world” sailing race that’s been ongoing since 1989 occurring roughly every four years.  It’s a grueling single-handed non-stop race from a port in France (a French sailor is the founder of this race) called the Vendée Globe.  They sail south to the Cape of Good Hope (southern tip of Africa), continue south to sail clockwise around Antarctica, then return to France, again non-stop, no outside assistance allowed.  Typically takes about 9 months.  There have been many boats from all different countries that have participated.

One of the major strategic decisions the skippers have to make is that if they sail closer to Antarctica this distance they have to travel is less since they’re basically circling Antarctica, so that saves time, but then the odds of running into ice is higher.  And these guys have to sleep sometime.  Given the speeds these pedigreed racing sailboats can travel now if they slam into a big enough chunk of ice - their boat is destroyed and they’re dead.  They are not permitted any outside input like from meteorologists and satellite photos.  It’s entirely up to each skipper.  The typical sea conditions are 20-30 foot waves and winds in the 40-50 knot range.  An amazing feat of endurance.

But how can this race exist if the typical FE model is true? And it happens about every four years with multiple boats.  All the people involved are lying?

#### GreatATuin

• 294
• It's turtles all the way down
##### Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« Reply #56 on: May 24, 2020, 10:11:59 AM »
Also, these sailing races don't come out of nowhere: they take the "Clipper route" used by merchant sailing ships of the 19th century. Sailors of that time already knew they had to choose between a safer route or a shorter one further south, but with increased risks of meeting an iceberg.
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.