sovereignbull on Nostr: So there are pictures which shows us seeing further than we should be able to, and ...
So there are pictures which shows us seeing further than we should be able to, and your response is nahuh?
Surface tension on a water droplet isn't curvature dude 😂. If that was the case, are you suggesting the center of 'gravity' is in the middle of the water droplet? Honestly I'm amazed you actually tried to use that as an argument.
Did you not read my whole response? You claimed the flight goes over Antarctica, which it objectively doesn't. I went to flight radar and got the path for you.
Next, you ignored my question about how you establish airspeed vs ground speed. And now you're demonstrating that you don't even know tail winds exist, or how much difference they can make on flight times. What is ECEF and his does it relate to GPS? Are there coordinate transforms which occur when calculating flights and sailing routes?
Ah yes, political boundaries. I didn't realize the sun subscribes to those. Are you unable to understand that a sphere divided into equal 15 degree or 1 hour sections would necessitate that they are all equal, above and below the equator. Yeah, political boundaries, yet they somehow have to reduce the number of timezones in exactly the way that would be expected on a plane. How awfully convenient.
You, like most, don't seem to even understand your own model and the claims made. Galileo? What in today's model relies on his work to function? Maybe I should start with the basics. Without deferring to Google, can you define gravity in your own model? Can you elaborate on the fine tuning problem? How about the anisotropic measurements of the CMBR, how do you reconcile those? What about the fact that the tychonian model has less epicycles, making it a simpler and more viable alternative to the current model?
You got a telescope, does it have auto tracking? Calibrate it then point it at Jupiter. Now note the claimed distance. Now, without refocusing, send your telescope to the moon. Now, explain to me how it's in focus.
Surface tension on a water droplet isn't curvature dude 😂. If that was the case, are you suggesting the center of 'gravity' is in the middle of the water droplet? Honestly I'm amazed you actually tried to use that as an argument.
Did you not read my whole response? You claimed the flight goes over Antarctica, which it objectively doesn't. I went to flight radar and got the path for you.
Next, you ignored my question about how you establish airspeed vs ground speed. And now you're demonstrating that you don't even know tail winds exist, or how much difference they can make on flight times. What is ECEF and his does it relate to GPS? Are there coordinate transforms which occur when calculating flights and sailing routes?
Ah yes, political boundaries. I didn't realize the sun subscribes to those. Are you unable to understand that a sphere divided into equal 15 degree or 1 hour sections would necessitate that they are all equal, above and below the equator. Yeah, political boundaries, yet they somehow have to reduce the number of timezones in exactly the way that would be expected on a plane. How awfully convenient.
You, like most, don't seem to even understand your own model and the claims made. Galileo? What in today's model relies on his work to function? Maybe I should start with the basics. Without deferring to Google, can you define gravity in your own model? Can you elaborate on the fine tuning problem? How about the anisotropic measurements of the CMBR, how do you reconcile those? What about the fact that the tychonian model has less epicycles, making it a simpler and more viable alternative to the current model?
You got a telescope, does it have auto tracking? Calibrate it then point it at Jupiter. Now note the claimed distance. Now, without refocusing, send your telescope to the moon. Now, explain to me how it's in focus.