Video

Kind of. I was watching and streaming while Saturn was reappearing, but by that time the sky was so bright that it wasn't clearly visible. It was just a spot that was a teeny tiny bit brighter than the surrounding noise, barely noticeable, and even then it was hard to be sure if you're not imagining it.

Right? Some will say that this is because "the sky is periodic", but somehow nobody has shown how to compute the actual time of anything from this periodicity... I wonder why.

It wasn't a full moon! Unfortunately, the dark part was where Saturn was emerging. I was hoping to capture how it is emerging from nowhere, but that didn't quite pan out because of how bright the sky was. If the weather cooperates in January (which, unfortunately, is rather unlikely), the occultation will start on the dark side then, which might be fun to see (and it will be during the night, so no bright sky!).

Thank you for the kind words! 🙂 "can the size of the mirage band be used to improve estimates of the refractive index? Is it just too few pixels to mean any estimate actually has a worse error?" Kind of. One could try to find a temperature profile that reproduces the right size of the mirage, but there are likely many different profiles that would fit, and I don't know of any direct method of doing that, only trial and error - and, as you can probably imagine, that's not very efficient.

My father was a co-pilot/navigator in B-47s He used a bubble sextant to shoot stats at night. No horizon needed dumbfuck

Then the shapes computed in this video would be wrong. But even in such a case the 60 NM per degree still implies a spherical shape of the Earth. I explained it in more detail here: czcams.com/video/BwP8rmBdKRY/video.html

"the simulation used as a reference doesn't fit the real images" Doesn't it? I'd say it fits quite well.

@@scienceitout It doesn't. The narrator points it out at about 5:22. He makes a note that this may be due to refraction. The narrator says, "He sees less than he was suppose to see". This is true if it is assumed that the simulation is a precise and accurate recreation. At about 5:22, the photographed water line is above the simulated waterline. He continues, "If I knew the proper atmospheric conditions..." He demonstrated that he cannot calibrate the device he is using as a reference.

@@johnfitzgerald8879 Why "the narrator"? Usually it is reasonable to assume that the owner of the channel is the person in the video, especially so with small channels like mine. And that assumption would have been perfectly correct. "The narrator" is me, you can just write "you". Regarding the rest, I still do not understand the issue you have with the video. Yes, there is a slight discrepancy when standard refraction is assumed. But we know that refraction is often different than standard in reality, especially over water. So it is reasonable to expect that it was caused by nonstandard conditions. I would have been able to check if someone performed the required measurements during the observation, but unfortunately no-one did. Also, there is no "device" to be "calibrated" here.

He removed them or made them private a while ago. I don't have copies, unfortunately. It's possible he realized he was mistaken - not necessarily thanks to my video, but IIRC people have mentioned it to him, so who knows 😉

Kind of depends on how you define line of sight. I implicitly took it to mean the path of light arriving at the eye, which is one option. You could also define it to be the direction in which you are looking, which as I understand would be your preferred definition, and that would be fine, too. I disagree with the second part of your comment, though. Even if we go with my definition and the lines of sight are bent, it doesn't follow that there are no straight lines on a globe. It just means those particular lines aren't straight. If someone tries to claim that there are no straight lines on a globe because of that, that's their problem, not mine.

@@scienceitout thanks for the response.. and that does make sense. Both parts of yours. Simply following spherical geometry, of course there are straight lines on a sphere. But understanding spherical geometry is asking too much from a flat earther. Just joking. I wish they would fight for better understanding things. Thanks for the video as well.

Thanks for this profession of faith, but what does it have to do with the video?

@@globe_atheist81 Sounds like a you problem to me 🤷

"The farthest thing ever seen is Mt Everest from 125 miles." You should probably double check that. "All the luminaries in the sky are being rendered locally to each individual observer's circle of sight (eyes, cameras, etc.)..." The fun thing is that even if that were true (and I'm not aware of any good reason to believe so), it would _still_ be possible to show that the surface of the Earth must be spherical based on the relations used by celestial navigation. In fact, that's what I showed in this video: czcams.com/video/BwP8rmBdKRY/video.html

do you use that map to navigate?

"This is NOT Celestial Navigation." I can agree on this one! This is just a theoretical description of the very first step of CN, ie. making measurements. The main part of CN is turning those measurements into a position fix - something that no flat earther seems to be able to do, coincidentally!

The funny part is that flerfs have no idea how celestial navigation even works. The only flerfs who dared to navigate on their own got rescued by the coastguards after a few hours.

According to 10thman, he came up with this ‘sextants prove a flat earth’ garbage at the beginning of 2020. You feckless simpletons have had 4 years to demonstrate a sight reduction and you still can’t do it. You jerkoffs cannot show us a flat earth nautical almanac. Because you cannot agree upon whether there is a dome covering your idiot flat earth or if the sky is planar and endless you can’t even describe how you would determine the GP of a celestial object. Feckless clown.

OK, I'll bite - what is a tangent according to you? I kind of wonder what kind of a twisted misunderstanding you guys managed to come up with for this one.

🦗🦗🦗

If you stopped listening to flat earthers who have as little idea about all of this as you do, you wouldn't be writing such silly statements. Here's where the GP would be on my diagrams, and where the _relevant_ right angles are: imgur.com/IreWJyK

@@scienceitout LOL, I AM a flat earther because earth is FLAT. Don't tell me what to do or not to do clown. You need the equatorial plane in the middle of your ball now? Looks like you need flat earth measurements after al to assume your ball to draw at least 2 tangents on that has nothing to do with taken an elevation angle on a flat plane, which what is ACTUALLY done all the time. You still don't know what an elevation angle is, let alone take one to a celestial body.

@@scienceitout LOL, I AM a flat earther because earth is FLAT. Don't tell me what to do or not to do ball believing zealot. You need the equatorial plane in the middle of your ball now? Looks like you need flat earth measurements after al to assume your ball to draw at least 2 tangents on that has nothing to do with taken an elevation angle on a flat plane, which what is ACTUALLY done all the time. You still don't know what an elevation angle is, let alone take one to a celestial body.

@@sunbirdism No equatorial plane in that diagram, try again. Also, you're still bickering about angles and completely forgetting the _purpose_ of celestial navigation, which is to compute a _position_ from the elevation measurements. To my knowledge, still no flat earther ever showed being able to do that. And you're also continuing to ignore my requests to show your ability in this regard. I wonder why?

@@scienceitout Meanwhile in reality elevation angles are taken from a flat surface from observer position to the GP, which you deny. Keep denying reality and tell me how you got one GP in "space" and another GP on a curved surface. LOL

"So you DON'T point your sextant to the horizon to esthablish a HORIZONTAL PLANE of reference" No. You establish a horizontal plane of reference by subtracting the dip angle from the measurement. If there was a possibility of measuring directly from horizontal, the dip correction wouldn't be necessary. (That is the case with bubble sextants and theodolites, which can also be used for celestial navigation.) "And you DON'T actually esthablish an elevation angle in relation to the apparant position of the celestial body." That's actually exactly what you do. Only the apparent position is different from the true position - hence the need to correct for refraction. "And then you take your height above sea LEVEL, which is above a sea which is NOT LEVEL" It is level. It's just not flat. "to (NOT?) correct for your height above sea LEVEL" The dip correction is based on the observer height, but it is not a correction for height, it's a correction for the horizon dip. "which is not actually sea LEVEL" Again, just because it's not flat, doesn't mean it's not level.

@@scienceitout You sure it isn't FLAT? Cause it's measured FLAT. Looks like your GP is not on the ground forming a right angle to take an elevation angle. Denying your vertical to the GP? I could of swear the sextant was being pointed at the horizon to esthablish a HORIZONTAL plane of reference, which is parallel to the surface of that which you are navigating. Dip correction being there for correcting for your HEIGHT above that exact PLANE. Think you got some stuff mixed up in your globe delusion about a sextant.

@@sunbirdism "You sure it isn't FLAT? Cause it's measured FLAT." I'm sure, and no, it's not measured flat. I actually measured it. It was curved: czcams.com/video/V-dl9-xu2kE/video.html There are other reasons to believe it's not flat, too, for example: czcams.com/video/BwP8rmBdKRY/video.html czcams.com/video/dU7JU3rUM9o/video.html czcams.com/video/omeSZThqqaI/video.html "Looks like your GP is not on the ground forming a right angle to take an elevation angle." Nobody is interested in that right angle. You're fighting a strawman. "I could of swear the sextant was being pointed at the horizon to esthablish a HORIZONTAL plane of reference" Well, you would still be wrong. "Think you got some stuff mixed up in your globe delusion about a sextant." Not at all. I think if you actually tried to use some sextant measurements to get a position fix, you would quickly find that you _can't_ do that if you assume a flat Earth. The measurements itself could be done on either a flat Earth or a globe (although there shouldn't be a dip correction on a flat Earth...), but the process of obtaining a fix _requires_ a globe. Want me to post some sextant measurements I've taken myself? I'll post them, and you tell me where I was when I took them, how about that?

@@scienceitout Nope, you need a flat plane to take an elevation angle to polaris. Your delusion is based off flat earth measurements. The fact that earth is measured and navigated exactly in this way, i.e. flat, is absolutely proof of earth IS flat. No way around this. And height is always in respect to sea-LEVEL, which is a plane of reference to which you set the sextant by pointing it to the horizon for calibration. You correct for eye-height above this plane (dip-correction), that is above sea-LEVEL. Looks like you wanna create a complete and utter nonsense story about how elevation angles above a FLAT plane are taken.

@@sunbirdism "Nope, you need a flat plane to take an elevation angle to polaris" First, why are you getting so hung up about Polaris? It's just a star. You can take an elevation angle of any star, not just Polaris. Sure, it's close to the north celestial pole, but it's not exactly _at_ the pole (so all this stuff Nathan is going about that you can get your latitude by just measuring the elevation of Polaris is not _quite_ correct). Second, no, no flat plane is needed for that. That's just your strawman. "The fact that earth is measured and navigated exactly in this way, i.e. flat, is absolutely proof of earth IS flat." Except it's not measured flat nor navigated flat. That's just your denial speaking. "And height is always in respect to sea-LEVEL, which is a plane of reference" Sea level is a geoid. It's defined by expressing the deviations from an ellipsoid using spherical harmonics (quite an interesting mathematical topic, BTW). "to which you set the sextant by pointing it to the horizon for calibration." All wrong. "You correct for eye-height above this plane (dip-correction)" It's based on the eye height, but it's a correction for the horizon dip. So, how about my small challenge? Wanna try figuring out where I was when I took some actual sextant measurements? I obtained a fix from those measurements. Show me that you know at least as much about celestial navigation that you can do the same.

"You haven't proven a globe." No, I haven't. At least not in this video. It wasn't its goal. The goal of this video was to show that the FE claim of "a sextant can't work on a globe" is false. It can, it does, and this is how it does. "IMAGINE SEEING MOUNT CANIGOU FROM 170 MILES AWAY BECAUSE ITS REFRACTED! LOL" Yes, refraction actually plays a part in all long distance observations - in the ones of Mount Canigou, too. You should probably see my other video: czcams.com/video/omeSZThqqaI/video.html

@scienceitout fair enough. I didn't realize this video was only intended to be hypothetical . Your refraction video is nice, but dude, refraction will never let you see things that are behind a geometric hill, which is what you have to claim the earths alleged convexity is. You just rightly illustrated that light refracts down. Could this, air quality and perspective be the reason we only see things at the distance we do and not because of curvature which no one can scientifically prove?

@@fepatriot I wouldn't say "hypothetical", because this _is_ how this stuff works, regardless of any denial. It just wasn't intended to _prove_ that it is so.

@scienceitout well, I see you're making a lot of allegations without substantiate scientific validation such as actually proving the earths alleged convextiy scientifically, which is the most fundamental requirement in proving the globe.

@@fepatriot "I see you're making a lot of allegations without substantiate scientific validation such as actually proving the earths alleged convextiy scientifically" Uhm... czcams.com/video/V-dl9-xu2kE/video.html czcams.com/video/dU7JU3rUM9o/video.html czcams.com/video/7z8J3OYOcr8/video.html czcams.com/video/omeSZThqqaI/video.html czcams.com/video/BwP8rmBdKRY/video.html Just a few of my videos, each of which contains pretty strong evidence for the globe and against flat Earth. One of them I even called a proof - which is just a tiny bit clickbait-ish, as like any proof, it requires making some assumptions, but those assumptions are acceptable to most flat earthers, too.

"As a anti flat earther you need flat earth." No, I really, really don't. It has been a source of some fun for a while, but became a bit too repetitive for me. "You can't debunk flat earth because it is true." It really isn't. And if you look around my channel, I've shown quite a lot of evidence that it isn't.

In a way, yes. On a globe, too.

It us down until you reach the horizon. On the other side it is up, across the hidden height, until you reach the sun or the stars behind it.

"Did you have someone positioned at the side of your head and then tell you that your line of sight is bent while your looking up at the alleged star. I really dont believe thats possible in reality" Look a bit deeper into optics. The general principle is that in a non-uniform medium, light bends in the direction of increasing index of refraction. For the air, index of refraction generally increases with increasing density, and the density of air is higher near the ground than higher up. All of this together means that light in the atmosphere generally bends down. This is corroborated by long distance observations, observations of rising and setting stars, as well as flattening and chromatic aberration of rising and setting Moon and Sun.

Ironic that your papa-flerf is actually the one making stuff up all the time. Ask him when was the last time he used celestial navigation in the open sea.

Watching now, actually (although delayed by about 40 minutes). I'm loving what Nathan said there: "refraction is derived from the radius, it's got nothing to do with light at all". Beautiful!

@@scienceitout Thank you for responding. Have you realized how wrong you were about the whole cel nav methodology and basic geometry? All horizontals are parallel (with the plane of the horizon). All zeniths (of the GP's) are parallel. Horizontal and vertical are perpendicular. To describe vertical (elevation) a horizontal plane of reference is required. For sextant to work and give you 90 degree to gp's Earth must be Flat (horizontally extended plane) Please let me know if anything I just said here is not clear to understand.

@@Vlad_on_Zero_Degrees "All horizontals are parallel (with the plane of the horizon)." Not at all. "All zeniths (of the GP's) are parallel." Not at all, either. "Horizontal and vertical are perpendicular." Yes (at least as long as we are talking about horizontal and vertical at the same point). "To describe vertical (elevation) a horizontal plane of reference is required." Elevation is not the same as the vertical direction, and no horizontal plane of reference is required. Surfaces of constant elevation can have any shape. In the case of the Earth, that shape is a geoid. "For sextant to work and give you 90 degree to gp's Earth must be Flat (horizontally extended plane)" Not at all. The sextant only measures an angle between two directions. If what you are saying were true, it wouldn't be possible to use a sextant while standing on a hill, because the surface under your feet is not flat, then. But it is possible. You can still get an apparent elevation over the horizon in the middle of a hilly area. The problem there is figuring out what the dip of the horizon is, because the surface at the horizon isn't necessarily at zero elevation, but if you can do that, you can do celestial navigation perfectly well even on an obviously non-flat surface.

​@@scienceitout "not at all" is all you got??...denying the most basic laws of geometry? You can't be helped. ..."sextant measures an angle" you say?? Define "angle" - game over, thanks for playing - go back to grade 1 and learn basic Euclidian geometry

@@Vlad_on_Zero_Degrees "Not at all" is all I'm going to say. Either you know what the globe claim is, in which case there's no point in me explaining it to you, or you don't, in which case the shortcomings in your education are so severe that I see no point in continuing the conversation. As for what an angle is - you may have noticed that I explicitly only talk about angles between straight lines (tangents to the curves), precisely because this was targeted at people such as yourself, who deny that angles between curves are a thing. But they _are_ a thing, and I could have just as well talked about the angle between the light paths I've drawn. An angle between two curves is defined to be the angle between tangents to those curves at the point of intersection, so it would have been an equivalent phrasing. And I can guarantee that no mathematician or physicist would have any issue with a mention of an angle between two curves. "learn basic Euclidian geometry" Good advice. You should heed it. And I would also recommend going a bit beyond the basics. There's a lot of maths and science that, by the looks of it, you haven't even touched. Now, there's no shame in that, but it's good to have awareness of the limits of your own knowledge, which you don't seem to have.

I respectfully disagree 😉

@scienceitout A sextant is an angle measuring tool. It measures elevation angles of stars for celestial navigation. An elevation angle is the imaginary line of sight to the star and the horizontal plane the observer is standing on. Apologizing for no curvature doesn't help you.

@@TB-xx8vj "A sextant is an angle measuring tool." Yes. "It measures elevation angles of stars for celestial navigation." That, too, but not only that. It can be used for measuring all sorts of angles. For example, the angular separation between the Moon and a star, which used to be a way of determining time before accurate marine clocks were a thing. "An elevation angle is the imaginary line of sight to the star and the horizontal plane the observer is standing on." It's the angle between the imaginary line of sight to the star and an imaginary horizontal plane passing through the observer's eye. No standing on the plane is involved.

@@scienceitout Sea level is not imaginary. You conceded that you need height above sea level for dip correction. That's the horizontal baseline used for the elevation angle measurement.

@@TB-xx8vj Sea level is a geoid. Height above sea level is defined relative to the geoid. And the horizontal "baseline" is just an imaginary plane that is 90° to plumb, which has nothing to do with the surface or its shape.

ADMIRALTY MANUAL OF NAVIGATION 1914. Arts. 52-55. Page 62 It shows the same curved light paths.

@@jabberwock9248 Bowditch, too. msi.nga.mil/api/publications/download?key=16693975/SFH00000/Bowditch_Vol_1_LoRes.pdf&type=view chapter 16, especially figures 1604, 1605c (p. 310-311 in the PDF).

Unlikely to happen, but thanks for the heads up!

​@@scienceitout I know it's embarrassing for a flat earther to point out how wrong you are. You don't even know what a tangent is.

@@realitybear5574 Embarrassing? Maybe it would be if the "corrections" were actually correct. But as it is, they are more like hilarious misunderstandings ("refraction has nothing to do with light" 🤭), although the hilarity gets old fairly quickly (I'm still not quite over the one about refraction, though!).

@@realitybear5574 Nobody knows what happens when a flerf points out someone else's mistake, since flerfs enjoy being always wrong.

Good question. I'd have to double check, but I think I used standard refraction for most of the simulations. There were a few with non-standard refraction, which was based on the data for the day and place, but IIRC I've tried to annotate those - so there is one labelled "slightly non-standard refraction" and one "with zero temperature gradient", and those might be the only ones where refraction was non-standard.

I should clarify, even if we assume Newton's model with light "corpuscules" (photons) traveling, err, in a manner consistent with Newtonian mechanics, there should be considerable aberration at speeds comparable to the speed of light. (We can measure aberration at orbital speeds, anyway.) Special Relativity would just make it more pronounced when coming very close to the speed of light.

@@TruthNerds Well, yes. You could say that for now I'm assuming the speed of light to be infinite. Implementing aberration wouldn't be too hard, but I'm not sure that's a good idea (I definitely won't be going for 100% realism anyway, proper relativistic treatment would be too much of a hassle). It's something to be considered later, I guess.

​@@scienceitoutYOU are assuming the speed of light to be infinite and yet "SCIENCE" of which you claim to know, dictates that the speed of light is 299,799,458 m/s (in a vacuum which does not naturally exist ergo one must assume you mean in space- which is fake)! 😊

@@AdamCook138 You are aware that I wrote that in the context of talking about a video game, right? And that a video game can be as realistic or as unrealistic as its creator wants it to be?

Not sure if that works as a highlight. If you want him to see this, you should probably contact him directly. He probably won't like it very much, though.

@@scienceitout I was referring to you checking out the flat earth debate @NathanOakley1980! You should come to the show and present this information, I believe it would make for a good debate. All are welcome!

@@DanielSamaniego-of5xl Oh, I'm aware of Nathan. Not a big fan, to be completely honest. However, if he wants to chat about this, he's free to reach out - I kind of stopped doing this whole flat Earth thing for the time being, but I'm still open to conversations about it if someone is interested. I'm not going to actively look for opportunities to debate this topic, though.

@@scienceitout Word up ☺👍 I'll reach out to Nathan and see if he will review your video! If he does he will tell his audience to show you some algorithmic love and will link your video! If you in return make a response video to his, please be kind and send your audience to Nathan to show him so algorithmic love! I personally think your refracted zenith goes against what the heliocentric model claims! For they say its required to be straight in order to measure the angle 📐. I'm curious do you have a citation to back this refracted zenith claim? I'd love to dig into your claim, if you could point me in the direction you got this information that would be epic!

@@DanielSamaniego-of5xl "I'll reach out to Nathan and see if he will review your video! If he does he will tell his audience to show you some algorithmic love and will link your video! If you in return make a response video to his, please be kind and send your audience to Nathan to show him so algorithmic love!" Fair enough 👍 "I personally think your refracted zenith goes against what the heliocentric model claims!" I haven't talked about the zenith at all in the video, though. What is refracted is the images of the star and of the horizon (or, more precisely, light coming from them). How the light coming from a star is refracted, depends on the star's elevation above horizontal. For stars in the zenith, refraction is negligible and is assumed to just be 0. It is roughly 34' (0.57°) at the horizon, and less than 6' (0.1°) for stars higher than 9° above the horizon (thenauticalalmanac.com/TNARegular/2024_Nautical_Almanac.pdf p. 281-282). "I'm curious do you have a citation to back this refracted zenith claim?" If you mean what I'm saying about refraction (as above, I haven't really mentioned the zenith), you can find a pretty much identical description in Bowditch's "American Practical Navigator": msi.nga.mil/api/publications/download?key=16693975/SFH00000/Bowditch_Vol_1_LoRes.pdf&type=view chapter 16, especially figures 1604, 1605c (p. 310-311 in the PDF).

Thanks! I don't intend to delete anything. It's not like I hate what I did and want to distance myself from it - more like, I want to spend my time more productively in the future. Although, it's possible that at some point if I do publish something, it might be on a different platform, if CZcams progresses too much in its enshittification (which is in quite an advanced stage already).

Does this mean you know that man made climate change is a hoax, as opposed to man made environmental impact? Earh is flat, observed flat and measured flat. 😊

I'm not using an engine yet. I may try to use one if/when I decide that not using one is too much effort 😅 But generally, as I understand it, engines come with their own limitations and they could make it harder to implement some features I'll need, so I'll try to get as far as I can on my own, first (although that may depend on the engine). Not to mention that learning to properly use one is an undertaking in its own right 😅

@@scienceitout That makes sense. There are only a few game engines in Rust that seem to be actively being developed and they definitely aren't as fully featured as ones in other languages like Unreal or Godot.

@@scienceitout Using procedural generation is a good idea when you want this many stars, it makes culling a lot easier. I don't know if you are familiar with Sebastian Lague's channel, it might offer some ideas and inspiration for future developments. [edit: corrected misspelling of Sebasitan's name]

@@michaeldamolsen Thanks for the tip! Will take a look 🙂

Thanks, really nice of you to say! 😊

Hahahaha! I saw an old vid of his speaking of bent lines of sight. There are non so blind as those who refuse to see. I came here because of Nathan Oakley Flat Earth Debates.

6:39 "I actually lied a bit". Having heard of you through Nathan Oakley Flat Earth Debates, at first I thought you were ignorant but now you have stated your dishonesty. 😮

@@AdamCook138 If that fragment, in that context, is an admission of dishonesty to you, then I really don't know what to say.

What is down? The acceleration. What is up? The equal and opposite force.

@@ReinoGoo If that's down and up, then what is askance?

@@acefox1 If there's an opportunity for me to assist, I probably will - after all, it would be a shame if all the effort I put into the raytracer went to waste, for example 😁

​@@scienceitout Would you still be open to answering private inquire about flat earth claims?

@@thegoblin957 Sure! Feel free to ask in the comments or on Discord (I'm on a few popular servers, other than my own).

a question that sounds closely related to the question of mean free path length (as applied to entire stars) 🙂

If you want to balance anything, you'll need a flat earth for that.

I'm mostly concerned that I'll lose interest at some point and the project will just get stuck in a limbo. That's what usually happens to my projects, unfortunately... 😅

@@scienceitout I want to encourage you just the same! Who knows how far you can take it, and it may end up a success, or it may end up as an enjoyable hobby. No regrets! 🙂