"Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« on: March 11, 2016, 11:03:59 AM »
I have been a believer of flat earth, until recently. Please take a gander at this video; (Mirror) Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality) by a "proper Surveyor" (very well put together). He is saying that the formula for the curvature is not entirely correct (allegedly), take a look for yourselves;


I would love to hear your comments on this video please, either way and can we try and be civil with each other, as we all, only want the truth!
Thanks
Freeman

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2016, 12:06:05 PM »
I have been a believer of flat earth, until recently. Please take a gander at this video; (Mirror) Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality) by a "proper Surveyor" (very well put together). He is saying that the formula for the curvature is not entirely correct (allegedly), take a look for yourselves;
(removed video)
I would love to hear your comments on this video please, either way and can we try and be civil with each other, as we all, only want the truth!
Thanks
Freeman
That does look like what I posted.
The Geodetic Surveyor Jesse Kozlowski made this video describing just what a Geodetic Surveyor does and how in the end these surveyors have effectively "measured the earth" and shown that it simply cannot be a flat plane.

Still, all comments welcomed!

(edit - removed repeat of video)
« Last Edit: March 11, 2016, 12:09:06 PM by rabinoz »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6475
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2016, 05:49:02 PM »
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5606
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2016, 03:33:04 AM »
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

Why in the world would a modern surveyor be concerned with the empty assertions of someone made 160 years ago? 
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3782
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2016, 03:35:07 AM »
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.
Since when is ENaG the authority on surveying? ???
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6475
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2016, 05:43:32 AM »
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

Why in the world would a modern surveyor be concerned with the empty assertions of someone made 160 years ago?

If he wanted to attack the authority on Flat Earth Theory, he would. I doubt anyone here really cares if he attacks some random poorly informed Youtube video author from that other society.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5606
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2016, 04:04:49 PM »

If he wanted to attack the authority on Flat Earth Theory, he would. I doubt anyone here really cares if he attacks some random poorly informed Youtube video author from that other society.

I doubt anyone who read Rowbotham's book would mistake him for an authority.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6475
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2016, 08:22:21 PM »
We don't really care about a video critique of a youtube group of investigators who seek to "expose the global conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion". We are partial to Rowbotham's work on the subject here. If you have anything we are actually interested in, let us know.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5606
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2016, 08:34:56 PM »
We don't really care about a video critique of a youtube group of investigators who seek to "expose the global conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion". We are partial to Rowbotham's work on the subject here. If you have anything we are actually interested in, let us know.
Well you should be interested to know that Rowbotham is evidently mistaken on the topic of spherical excess.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 09:28:40 PM by Rama Set »
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2016, 10:32:56 PM »
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.

I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here

geckothegeek

Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2016, 12:06:36 AM »
We don't really care about a video critique of a youtube group of investigators who seek to "expose the global conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion". We are partial to Rowbotham's work on the subject here. If you have anything we are actually interested in, let us know.
Well you should be interested to know that Rowbotham is evidently mistaken on the topic of spherical excess.

Have a care, sirrah ! Don't you know that The Flat Earth Society regards Samuel Birley Rowbotham was a genius and every thing he wrote  is The Gospel Truth ?

geckothegeek

Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2016, 12:12:47 AM »
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.

I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here

I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded  by an ice wall and  covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2016, 12:33:30 AM »
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.

I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here
What Tom Bishop and all the other FEers simply cannot comprehend is that Geodetic Surveyors do a lot more than measure "spherical excess"!
The main task of Geodetic Surveyors is simply to measure large areas of land - countries and continents.

It is these measurements that prove the earth certainly does not conform to the map shown in the Wiki.
In this map the spacing between the meridians of longitude continually increase from zero at the North Pole to a maximum at "the Rim".
Quote from: the Wiki
Earth
The earth is the flat astronomical body where live numerous species of plants, animals and other beings. The North Pole is the center of the earth, and South Pole is a circumference around it.
The sun and the moon are both located circa 3,000 miles above earth's surface. They have a mutual orbit (similar to a binary system orbit), which produces day and night on earth.
The stars are small astronomical bodies located circa 3,100 miles above earth and 100 miles above sun and moon orbit.
I am preparing a much more detailed post on this topic but for now I have some values of the width of a degree taken from old (in the 1800s) high resolution maps of Australia and the USA.
Latitude   
km/deg at Lat   
Earth's circum at Lat   
Country, map date
51.0°   
70.3     
25,323 km       
USA, 1887 
31.0°   
95.7     
34,447 km       
USA, 1887 
-10.0°   
109.4     
39,388 km       
Australia, 1855 
-34.0°   
92.0     
33,105 km       
Australia, 1855 

The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth.

These figures do not fit the North Polar Equidistant Azimuthal Map we are told is "The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth."
But they do almost exactly fit a globe and they are very close to the distances we get from "Google Earth"!
THIS is where these Geodetic Surveyors prove that the earth at least does not conform to the "Flat Earth Map.

By the way: I live in Australia and have verified some of these figures personalty.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2016, 12:36:16 AM »
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.

I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here

I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded  by an ice wall and  covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?
True, and very few believed in 1850!

Offline Bzz

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2016, 01:37:32 PM »
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.

I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here

I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded  by an ice wall and  covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]

Knowledge is just a construe, which we usually preserve only the core in the form of a simple statement, like "the earth is round". You need to go back and see what makes it a true statement in order to understand and express yourself about it. Once you did that, congratulations. But the same goes to other theories, like the Flat one. It's not implied that by reading one theory, this will dimiss the other. You need to pay a visit to both. And then compare.

Why not to give a chance to a different body of knowledge?

So I think, as someone already said above, that to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source. If you want to talk about linguistics, for instance, it is reasoable that you've already read some authors, like Chomsky, Saussure.. isn't it?
To understand about any body of knowledge, you need to read the people who've produced it, and not only be attached to the ideas you take from specialists.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 01:42:14 PM by Bzz »

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2016, 02:37:52 PM »
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.

I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here

I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded  by an ice wall and  covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]

Knowledge is just a construe, which we usually preserve only the core in the form of a simple statement, like "the earth is round". You need to go back and see what makes it a true statement in order to understand and express yourself about it. Once you did that, congratulations. But the same goes to other theories, like the Flat one. It's not implied that by reading one theory, this will dimiss the other. You need to pay a visit to both. And then compare.

Why not to give a chance to a different body of knowledge?

So I think, as someone already said above, that to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source. If you want to talk about linguistics, for instance, it is reasoable that you've already read some authors, like Chomsky, Saussure.. isn't it?
To understand about any body of knowledge, you need to read the people who've produced it, and not only be attached to the ideas you take from specialists.

I came to this site because I am a writer of Speculative Fiction (AKA Science Fiction) I was researching land marks on the side of the moon we don't see for a new book I'm writing, when I saw a link that made no sense; Flat Earth.

I am telling you this and the information below so you have an idea that I do know a  thing or 6

I am not a math wiz, but I do understand a lot of math as the last half of my 30 years with the Federal Government was as a Civilian Accounting Tech and most of that time was as the Lead Auditor for my Section. 11 years were active duty Air Force and half of that time was working around and securing nuclear weapons.

I am also a pilot, though I can no longer afford to fly as the cost of fuel alone is outrageous and my hearing is not all that great anymore.

In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe, as using global nav for a flat plane leads to a condition called LOST.  And yes GPS is great but if you can't nav with a paper map and protractor FIRST, you may get LOST.

So far what I have read on FET lacks any foundation in science; Observation, experimentation and math. I will add here that I have posted two questions in Q&A and have been read but not responded to. Why? Because the observation, experimentation, and math prove why FE sunset/rise (27 views) is impossible and viewing Polaris from below the Equator (27 views) is also impossible.

Quote
to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source.

If a source wrote a 1000 page book stating 2+2=17, would you read the book knowing that the math is not correct and none of the arguments stand up to scrutiny of even grade school math?

If the math of RE is wrong, then so is ALL math. And if all math is wrong the computers and the programs running them are impossible and were are not having this debate. But we are having the debate so the math is correct.

On the other hand, have YOU followed your own advice and watched the video?

Several people have indicated they have in their responses posted here.
Quote
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

The person DID refute the Earth Not a Globe. I can't grasp the  idea that that because the person addressed some FE YouTube instead of Tom Bishop specifically, his observations, experimentation and math are invalid.
It is a fancy way of saying, he was not addressing me, so my math, which is the same as the YouTube guy he WAS addressing is STILL valid.

Leroy Jethro Gibbs Head Slap.

Offline Bzz

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2016, 06:01:15 PM »
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.

I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here

I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded  by an ice wall and  covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]

Knowledge is just a construe, which we usually preserve only the core in the form of a simple statement, like "the earth is round". You need to go back and see what makes it a true statement in order to understand and express yourself about it. Once you did that, congratulations. But the same goes to other theories, like the Flat one. It's not implied that by reading one theory, this will dimiss the other. You need to pay a visit to both. And then compare.

Why not to give a chance to a different body of knowledge?

So I think, as someone already said above, that to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source. If you want to talk about linguistics, for instance, it is reasoable that you've already read some authors, like Chomsky, Saussure.. isn't it?
To understand about any body of knowledge, you need to read the people who've produced it, and not only be attached to the ideas you take from specialists.

I came to this site because I am a writer of Speculative Fiction (AKA Science Fiction) I was researching land marks on the side of the moon we don't see for a new book I'm writing, when I saw a link that made no sense; Flat Earth.

I am telling you this and the information below so you have an idea that I do know a  thing or 6

I am not a math wiz, but I do understand a lot of math as the last half of my 30 years with the Federal Government was as a Civilian Accounting Tech and most of that time was as the Lead Auditor for my Section. 11 years were active duty Air Force and half of that time was working around and securing nuclear weapons.

I am also a pilot, though I can no longer afford to fly as the cost of fuel alone is outrageous and my hearing is not all that great anymore.

In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe, as using global nav for a flat plane leads to a condition called LOST.  And yes GPS is great but if you can't nav with a paper map and protractor FIRST, you may get LOST.

So far what I have read on FET lacks any foundation in science; Observation, experimentation and math. I will add here that I have posted two questions in Q&A and have been read but not responded to. Why? Because the observation, experimentation, and math prove why FE sunset/rise (27 views) is impossible and viewing Polaris from below the Equator (27 views) is also impossible.

Quote
to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source.

If a source wrote a 1000 page book stating 2+2=17, would you read the book knowing that the math is not correct and none of the arguments stand up to scrutiny of even grade school math?

If the math of RE is wrong, then so is ALL math. And if all math is wrong the computers and the programs running them are impossible and were are not having this debate. But we are having the debate so the math is correct.

On the other hand, have YOU followed your own advice and watched the video?

Several people have indicated they have in their responses posted here.
Quote
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

The person DID refute the Earth Not a Globe. I can't grasp the  idea that that because the person addressed some FE YouTube instead of Tom Bishop specifically, his observations, experimentation and math are invalid.
It is a fancy way of saying, he was not addressing me, so my math, which is the same as the YouTube guy he WAS addressing is STILL valid.

Leroy Jethro Gibbs Head Slap.

Yes, I've watched.

"In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe."

You don't need to know what the shape of Earth is to learn navigation. You only need a coordinate system.
If someone created a coordinate system that could work on a flat earth map, in order to you to fulfill your tasks as a professional, would you believe the Earth is flat?

Look, I don't know of what maths you're talking. If you want to show an example of some contradiction you've found, maybe start a new thread and discuss it. I'm curious.
No doubt more people here know good math and will help you (since math is very important to you).

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2016, 08:33:20 PM »
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.

I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here

I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded  by an ice wall and  covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]

Knowledge is just a construe, which we usually preserve only the core in the form of a simple statement, like "the earth is round". You need to go back and see what makes it a true statement in order to understand and express yourself about it. Once you did that, congratulations. But the same goes to other theories, like the Flat one. It's not implied that by reading one theory, this will dimiss the other. You need to pay a visit to both. And then compare.

Why not to give a chance to a different body of knowledge?

So I think, as someone already said above, that to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source. If you want to talk about linguistics, for instance, it is reasoable that you've already read some authors, like Chomsky, Saussure.. isn't it?
To understand about any body of knowledge, you need to read the people who've produced it, and not only be attached to the ideas you take from specialists.

I came to this site because I am a writer of Speculative Fiction (AKA Science Fiction) I was researching land marks on the side of the moon we don't see for a new book I'm writing, when I saw a link that made no sense; Flat Earth.

I am telling you this and the information below so you have an idea that I do know a  thing or 6

I am not a math wiz, but I do understand a lot of math as the last half of my 30 years with the Federal Government was as a Civilian Accounting Tech and most of that time was as the Lead Auditor for my Section. 11 years were active duty Air Force and half of that time was working around and securing nuclear weapons.

I am also a pilot, though I can no longer afford to fly as the cost of fuel alone is outrageous and my hearing is not all that great anymore.

In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe, as using global nav for a flat plane leads to a condition called LOST.  And yes GPS is great but if you can't nav with a paper map and protractor FIRST, you may get LOST.

So far what I have read on FET lacks any foundation in science; Observation, experimentation and math. I will add here that I have posted two questions in Q&A and have been read but not responded to. Why? Because the observation, experimentation, and math prove why FE sunset/rise (27 views) is impossible and viewing Polaris from below the Equator (27 views) is also impossible.

Quote
to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source.

If a source wrote a 1000 page book stating 2+2=17, would you read the book knowing that the math is not correct and none of the arguments stand up to scrutiny of even grade school math?

If the math of RE is wrong, then so is ALL math. And if all math is wrong the computers and the programs running them are impossible and were are not having this debate. But we are having the debate so the math is correct.

On the other hand, have YOU followed your own advice and watched the video?

Several people have indicated they have in their responses posted here.
Quote
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

The person DID refute the Earth Not a Globe. I can't grasp the  idea that that because the person addressed some FE YouTube instead of Tom Bishop specifically, his observations, experimentation and math are invalid.
It is a fancy way of saying, he was not addressing me, so my math, which is the same as the YouTube guy he WAS addressing is STILL valid.

Leroy Jethro Gibbs Head Slap.

Yes, I've watched.

"In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe."

You don't need to know what the shape of Earth is to learn navigation. You only need a coordinate system.
If someone created a coordinate system that could work on a flat earth map, in order to you to fulfill your tasks as a professional, would you believe the Earth is flat?

Look, I don't know of what maths you're talking. If you want to show an example of some contradiction you've found, maybe start a new thread and discuss it. I'm curious.
No doubt more people here know good math and will help you (since math is very important to you).

Navigation is NOT a chessboard;
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2009/August/200908_Features_Dead_Reckoning.html

Here at home, the variation is 2 degrees which will get you lost but it will take time. In southern California the Variation is 18 degrees. Gets you lost in a HURRY.

After reading the link it should be clear that using this on a FE model the best thing about it is you're LOST. If your attempt it over a large body of water I pray you can swim and the water is warm.

If after reading the link and you still don't get it, find a local flight school and have the instructor walk you though it. FET nav is not compatible with the real world



Offline Bzz

  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2016, 09:07:59 PM »
The surveyor proved the Round Earth and disproved FE.

I don't understand why this not understood by everyone here

I don't understand why anyone would believe that the earth was some flat disc ,surrounded  by an ice wall and  covered by an ice dome.
This is 2016 and not 1850, is it not ?]

Knowledge is just a construe, which we usually preserve only the core in the form of a simple statement, like "the earth is round". You need to go back and see what makes it a true statement in order to understand and express yourself about it. Once you did that, congratulations. But the same goes to other theories, like the Flat one. It's not implied that by reading one theory, this will dimiss the other. You need to pay a visit to both. And then compare.

Why not to give a chance to a different body of knowledge?

So I think, as someone already said above, that to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source. If you want to talk about linguistics, for instance, it is reasoable that you've already read some authors, like Chomsky, Saussure.. isn't it?
To understand about any body of knowledge, you need to read the people who've produced it, and not only be attached to the ideas you take from specialists.

I came to this site because I am a writer of Speculative Fiction (AKA Science Fiction) I was researching land marks on the side of the moon we don't see for a new book I'm writing, when I saw a link that made no sense; Flat Earth.

I am telling you this and the information below so you have an idea that I do know a  thing or 6

I am not a math wiz, but I do understand a lot of math as the last half of my 30 years with the Federal Government was as a Civilian Accounting Tech and most of that time was as the Lead Auditor for my Section. 11 years were active duty Air Force and half of that time was working around and securing nuclear weapons.

I am also a pilot, though I can no longer afford to fly as the cost of fuel alone is outrageous and my hearing is not all that great anymore.

In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe, as using global nav for a flat plane leads to a condition called LOST.  And yes GPS is great but if you can't nav with a paper map and protractor FIRST, you may get LOST.

So far what I have read on FET lacks any foundation in science; Observation, experimentation and math. I will add here that I have posted two questions in Q&A and have been read but not responded to. Why? Because the observation, experimentation, and math prove why FE sunset/rise (27 views) is impossible and viewing Polaris from below the Equator (27 views) is also impossible.

Quote
to criticize one type of knowledge the least you need to do is to go back and read its source.

If a source wrote a 1000 page book stating 2+2=17, would you read the book knowing that the math is not correct and none of the arguments stand up to scrutiny of even grade school math?

If the math of RE is wrong, then so is ALL math. And if all math is wrong the computers and the programs running them are impossible and were are not having this debate. But we are having the debate so the math is correct.

On the other hand, have YOU followed your own advice and watched the video?

Several people have indicated they have in their responses posted here.
Quote
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

The person DID refute the Earth Not a Globe. I can't grasp the  idea that that because the person addressed some FE YouTube instead of Tom Bishop specifically, his observations, experimentation and math are invalid.
It is a fancy way of saying, he was not addressing me, so my math, which is the same as the YouTube guy he WAS addressing is STILL valid.

Leroy Jethro Gibbs Head Slap.

Yes, I've watched.

"In learning navigation, it becomes very clear the Earth is a globe."

You don't need to know what the shape of Earth is to learn navigation. You only need a coordinate system.
If someone created a coordinate system that could work on a flat earth map, in order to you to fulfill your tasks as a professional, would you believe the Earth is flat?

Look, I don't know of what maths you're talking. If you want to show an example of some contradiction you've found, maybe start a new thread and discuss it. I'm curious.
No doubt more people here know good math and will help you (since math is very important to you).

Navigation is NOT a chessboard;
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2009/August/200908_Features_Dead_Reckoning.html

Here at home, the variation is 2 degrees which will get you lost but it will take time. In southern California the Variation is 18 degrees. Gets you lost in a HURRY.

After reading the link it should be clear that using this on a FE model the best thing about it is you're LOST. If your attempt it over a large body of water I pray you can swim and the water is warm.

If after reading the link and you still don't get it, find a local flight school and have the instructor walk you though it. FET nav is not compatible with the real world

Not in the mood to be redirected to another website. I suggest you explain yourself or drop the subject.

I wonder how then maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place without GPS and without the concept of a round earth.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2016, 11:11:01 PM »

Not in the mood to be redirected to another website. I suggest you explain yourself or drop the subject.

I wonder how then maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place without GPS and without the concept of a round earth.
I know you are not in the mood to listen to facts but "maritime exploration during the 15th and 16th centuries took place" with a clear concept of the Globe Earth!
Quote from: unknown to me at least
IN 1492
In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.

He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.

A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.
And Columbus knew the earth was a sphere[1] and hoped to find the East Indies by going west. His only trouble is that he knew the distance going east, but had has circumference of the earth "a bit out" and would have run out of food and others supplies long before getting to the East Indies!
Go learn some history and don't try to rewrite it it suit your own indoctrination!

[1] You might say he could have "circumnavigated" the "UN map" world, but that was not thought of at the time. There is no question that the earth has been considered a Globe since some centuries BC! Even in other cultures the globe seems to certainly considered.
Quote
A terrestrial globe (Kura-i-ard) was among the presents sent by the Persian Muslim astronomer Jamal-al-Din to Kubla Khan's Chinese court in 1267.
from: Spherical Earth, Islamic Astronomy