Awesome point during the debate. Unfortunately you were trying to explain this simple concept to someone who can invent new physics on the spot. I’m a bit confused on how FZ would expect celestial navigation to work if the stars are not where we see them in order to measure their angle of elevation?
@@derp8575 _"There aren't what exactly?"_ - PhD flat-earthers. _"The reason for asking is because my comment was removed."_ - It was not removed. We can see it. It says: _"There are PhD physicists who believe in flat earth. At this point any globies in the debate are being willfully ignorant."_ - You have to sort comments by "Newest first" instead of "Top comments" to see event the most disliked ones ;-) However, I personally wouldn't be so skeptical (or should I said optimistic) about the impossibility of a PhD becoming flat-earther. The mind is a mysterious thing. It is not a common thing to found PhD flat-earther for sure. And if we use your logic, where existence of PhD flat-earther makes ordinary people that understand the Earth is a globe willfully ignorant, then what means that there are much much more PhD's who are "globe-earthers"? What makes that any flatty in the debate then?
so the +0.542° on your illustration matches the +0.544° on your scaled down test but when on Mt Scott you measured a dip angle to the much taller Mt Shasta. Flatzoid could only spout his usual word salad. What if you were to tie a zipline between both mountains? I'd like to see Flatz slide down that! He really didn't get it. Just like the tree picture. At no time would the angle to the top of it become negative on FE.
@@derp8575 It is optically optical. The theodolite physically points up whilst simultaneously pointing down because of optics. The meniscus causes the light to bend optically due to viscosity. Optics. Simple stuff, my friend.
According to you, the theodolite physically points up at the mountain. Correct? The mountain only appears to drop below eye level optically. Correct? Question: If the theodolite is physically pointing up, why is it pointing down?
Except on the long distance observation the theodolite physically pointed down to a much taller mountain which is an impossibility on a flat earth. See if you can use some trigonometry and determine the distance the 2 mountains would need to be seperated for the top angle to become negative on a flat earth.
There is nothing wrong with synthetic thinking, Keith. However you seem to have almost zero analytical thinking ability and hypertrophied synthetic thinking, and that is IMHO not so good. You are using all the words like parallax, meniscus, diffraction, etc. to make such understanding of the world where anything that fits your belief simply could happen. Without really understanding what they actually are, much less how each of them affects what we observe.
Just subscribe through your debate on Jeranism. Wow Jesse you have great self control and patience with Flatzoid. He has so much denialism and belief,
Awesome point during the debate. Unfortunately you were trying to explain this simple concept to someone who can invent new physics on the spot. I’m a bit confused on how FZ would expect celestial navigation to work if the stars are not where we see them in order to measure their angle of elevation?
There are PhD physicists who believe in flat earth. At this point any globies in the debate are being willfully ignorant.
@@derp8575 No, there aren’t.
@@EmersumBiggins There aren't what exactly? The reason for asking is because my comment was removed.
@@derp8575 _"There aren't what exactly?"_ - PhD flat-earthers.
_"The reason for asking is because my comment was removed."_ - It was not removed. We can see it. It says: _"There are PhD physicists who believe in flat earth. At this point any globies in the debate are being willfully ignorant."_ - You have to sort comments by "Newest first" instead of "Top comments" to see event the most disliked ones ;-)
However, I personally wouldn't be so skeptical (or should I said optimistic) about the impossibility of a PhD becoming flat-earther. The mind is a mysterious thing. It is not a common thing to found PhD flat-earther for sure. And if we use your logic, where existence of PhD flat-earther makes ordinary people that understand the Earth is a globe willfully ignorant, then what means that there are much much more PhD's who are "globe-earthers"? What makes that any flatty in the debate then?
For example? Can you name a PhD physicist who thinks earth is flat? I want to debate him.
so the +0.542° on your illustration matches the +0.544° on your scaled down test but when on Mt Scott you measured a dip angle to the much taller Mt Shasta. Flatzoid could only spout his usual word salad. What if you were to tie a zipline between both mountains? I'd like to see Flatz slide down that! He really didn't get it. Just like the tree picture. At no time would the angle to the top of it become negative on FE.
It's only word salad because you don't understand. You all are *literally* incapable of steel manning a flat earth sunset.
@@derp8575
It is optically optical. The theodolite physically points up whilst simultaneously pointing down because of optics. The meniscus causes the light to bend optically due to viscosity. Optics. Simple stuff, my friend.
Cool!
great. so it did exactly as i said. well done. Glad you could see its based all optically :)
According to you, the theodolite physically points up at the mountain. Correct?
The mountain only appears to drop below eye level optically. Correct?
Question: If the theodolite is physically pointing up, why is it pointing down?
@@happyjoyjoy9694 I know it’s hard for you to understand this, but pointing to a apparent position is you physically pointing to a not actual position
Except on the long distance observation the theodolite physically pointed down to a much taller mountain which is an impossibility on a flat earth. See if you can use some trigonometry and determine the distance the 2 mountains would need to be seperated for the top angle to become negative on a flat earth.
@@Petey194 again physically pointing to a optics observation. It’s down not because it really is! It’s many optical variables.
There is nothing wrong with synthetic thinking, Keith. However you seem to have almost zero analytical thinking ability and hypertrophied synthetic thinking, and that is IMHO not so good. You are using all the words like parallax, meniscus, diffraction, etc. to make such understanding of the world where anything that fits your belief simply could happen. Without really understanding what they actually are, much less how each of them affects what we observe.