[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
In 1943 the RAF's Oboe radar-ranging system, used by high-flying Pathfinder Mosquito bombers for blind target-marking, was limited to 270 miles from the ground stations at Cromer and Dover, on the Norfolk and Kent coasts. This restricted the system to Ruhr targets until Continental stations were established after D-Day. The range was greater than pure line-of-sight would allow
BS. But then you said it, so why are we surprised. Line of sight comms prove the complete opposite, a non-existent ball Earth. Distraction attempt backfired spectacularly.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
1: no it isn't "perfectly" good.
2: I asked you why you chose an approximation instead of the actual formula - you have yet to answer. I don't care about ANYTHING but the answer to that question - so until you answer that, I'm not reading another word of yours.
I did not say it was perfectly good. I said it was a perfectly good approximation. It gives a prediction within 0.03% for all the horizon measurements I will claim.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Of course observer height matters. An observer that's far enough above the surface won't see any horizon at all, for example. They'll just see the surface of a quarter sphere and the space it's in.
You also haven't answered the main question, which is how we've ascertained that this calculation disagrees with empirical observations.
Well an observer is going to be at most on a hill or in a building. Mostly they are close to sea level, because these are the most obvious proofs earth is flat. But it matters not.
To see how obs refute this we need to first of all factor in atmospheric refraction.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Well an observer is going to be at most on a hill or in a building. Mostly they are close to sea level, because these are the most obvious proofs earth is flat. But it matters not.
To see how obs refute this we need to first of all factor in atmospheric refraction.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I am far from convinced that observer height is as irrelevant as you make it out to be, especially when you're measuring this dip in literally inches. But ok, describe this experiment in detail (diagrams would help) and we'll see.
I am far from convinced that observer height is as irrelevant as you make it out to be, especially when you're measuring this dip in literally inches. But ok, describe this experiment in detail (diagrams would help) and we'll see.
Experiment? And you were doing so well.
Observer height is as important as anything. And is accounted for, see above.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The original result by Rowbotham has been refuted many times. I thought you were a big fan of repeatability in your experiments?
You are confusing repeatability with reproducibility.
And experiment with observation.
And it has not been refuted.
There, the holy trinity of wrongness.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Experiment? And you were doing so well.
Observer height is as important as anything. And is accounted for, see above.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I don't see where it's accounted for.
"Experiment" meaning how you ascertained that empirical observations do not agree with these calculations. What would you call that if not an experiment?
I did enjoy watching all the You tube curvature tests over some lake or something. Now most of those videos are removed.
Then do it. When dealing with a difference of inches over many miles, you should be as precise as possible. Stop trying to prove things with approximations. It's what liars do.
"Proving things with approximations is what liars do"? I don't even.. uh.
"Difference of inches over many miles" we need to be precise? Do you know what precision means in the context of observation? It means consistency of measurement.
The 8 inches per mile squared formula is absolutely fine. It is sometimes equivalent to the "exact" (there is no such thing as exact measurement) measurement, and never greater than 0.03% either side. If you think this is relevant then you know very little of science.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I did enjoy watching all the You tube curvature tests over some lake or something. Now most of those videos are removed.
I cannot vouch for all this but interesting links here
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
For balance, some criticism here
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I am far from convinced that observer height is as irrelevant as you make it out to be, especially when you're measuring this dip in literally inches. But ok, describe this experiment in detail (diagrams would help) and we'll see.
Observer height is not irrelevant as refraction is more variable near the surface due to atmospheric density and other factors.
How many times are you going to misquote me and then act shocked. Again, this is what liars do. And you are a liar. Proven many times over.
Yes, dumbass, you need to be precise.
The 8 inches per mile squared formula is absolutely fine. It is sometimes equivalent to the "exact" (there is no such thing as exact measurement) measurement, and never greater than 0.03% either side. If you think this is relevant then you know very little of science.
Are you refusing to use the accurate formula now?
Then do it. When dealing with a difference of inches over many miles, you should be as precise as possible. Stop trying to prove things with approximations. It's what liars do.
Of all the nonsense billy talks this approximation is trivial. It's just the result of taking only the first two (linear and quadratic) terms of the Maclaurin expansion for cosθ, which for small values of θ is very accurate. Assuming I did the calculation correctly then even over distances of hundreds of miles it's accurate to within 0.1% (I think it creeps over that mark just before 500 miles).
Not accounting for observer height and atmospheric refraction are the major issues with flat earth "proofs" showing lack of curvature.
Of all the nonsense billy talks this approximation is trivial. It's just the result of taking only the first two (linear and quadratic) terms of the Maclaurin expansion for cosθ, which for small values of θ is very accurate. Assuming I did the calculation correctly then even over distances of hundreds of miles it's accurate to within 0.1% (I think it creeps over that
Atmospheric refraction will be dealt with later.
An observer at 6 feet elevation would see the horizon at 3 miles. That is what the 8 inches formula predicts. An object "over the horizon" is predicted in the same way.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
100% agreed in terms of the number of mistakes he's making, but it's important to me to establish firmly that he does not value accuracy at all.
Not accounting for observer height and atmospheric refraction are the major issues with flat earth "proofs" showing lack of curvature.
And this is the other reason I'm harping on it. This allows him to completely dismiss observer height as an issue. That was my original objection. Insisting on the correct formula AND all relevant variables is key. Once we've done the first, we can do the second. Allowing "approximations" creates acceptable error margins into which he can comfortably sweep other things like observer height and refraction.
I'm simply refusing to allow him to start down that road.
