Here is how I plotted the lines of sight in Geogebra: For each line of sight calculate the starting point on the surface and a point far away along the line of sight; Plot a sphere; Plot a ray for each line of sight. The calculations start with a starting point at the origin (0,0,0) and an end point a long way away straight up (0,0,lots). I apply the altitude and azimuth relative to the starting point for the line of sight. Then i move the two points straight up one Earth radius. I then apply latitude and longitude to get the orientation on the Earth correct. The rotations I am calculating are always a rotation about an axis. The positive angle is a rotation from a positive axis to towards the other positive axis. Taking A towards B about C changes A and B leaving C as is. For a positive angle D, the new A is Cos(D)A-Sin(D)B and the new B is Cos(D)B+Sin(D)A. The orientation of X, Y and Z in Geogebra, when stood on the positive X axis, is Z straight up, and Y out to the right. The X Z plane has the prime meridian. The X Y plane has the Equator. The Z axis is the axis of rotation with the North pole on the positive end. The line of sight is currently straight up so first subtract 90 to put it on the ground. So (Altitude - 90) is applied using Z towards X about Y. Azimuth is applied using Y towards X about Z. At this point Z in both points is increased by the radius of the Earth putting the starting point at the North pole. Use -90 degrees to go to the Equator and then add the Latitude. So that is (Latitude - 90) applied using X towards Z about Y. Longitude is applied using X towards Y about Z. The Geogebra algebra needed are: Sphere((0,0,0),3959) Ray((1,2,3),(4,5,6)) (1,2,3) is the X,Y,Z for the calculated starting point, and (4,5,6) is the calculated end point. Use one Ray per line of sight.
Wow, you've really gone the extra mile to get into his head 🤭. Is there any chance you can make your activity shareable by saving it online? It's the middle of the night right now and I'm not thinking very clearly. Saying that, I've just made this quick unlisted video. ua-cam.com/video/UD6JAlIMj1k/v-deo.html I think it's even more basic that what we both first thought.
just to add; looking at 1:47 you can see that he is just using a Paint type application by reading the top part of his screen. He has multiple files open. Some are .png file types and the one highlighted is a .jpg. This is something he has just thrown together on the spur of the moment. You can even see how he has constructed the image with the 'layers' window. I doubt very much they're screenshots from some 3D application. His point spacing is all wrong.
@@Petey194 Thanks, nicely observed. Having got the two rotation formulas straight I have had some fun reworking my Ray calculator spreadsheet to do both Globe and Flat Earth rays. To calculate Flat Earth the 1 Earth radius straight up move & the latitude rotation get replaced by a move along the X axis by (Latitude times distance for 1 degree). The rest is identical. The flat Earth results are as weird as expected with the Equator ray practically on the floor by the X axis.
@@sthurston2 Darn right it's fun! 🤣 I've not had much reason to use maths in my life but I must admit getting a kick out of realising how to construct the 2 azimuth vectors I used here in terms of using trig instead of my normal method of constructing things geometrically. The bonus for me was be able to utilise the Hc and Lat angles in the process. The feeling was kind of like putting pieces in a jigsaw to complete a picture! The downside is having to deal with the flerf arguments. I have to frequently switch off from them to protect my sanity! 🤣🤣
Another nice demonstration. The tricky bit is that Polaris is NOT exactly over the pole. Being off to one side by a tiny amount (~45 arc minutes) means as you get closer to the pole, you have to look further 'to the side' (depending on your longitude vs the hour-angle of polaris at the time of observation). If you happened to be at latitude 89 degrees 30 minutes (half the distance closer to the pole than Polaris), there are times throughout the night when you would be looking north, east, west, and even SOUTH. (but you'd still be craning your neck to look almost directly overhead).
I thought Queen Fee Fee was gone? He doesn't ever drop by livestreams with his sock accounts any more and ask why nobody is trying to do his "challenge" or whatever it is he wants people to do.
Beautiful. Your geogebra demos are magnificent. My current fantasy is to get Flat Earthers to map the "firmament"... After all, seeing the ground from the ground is tricky, but anybody can see the sky from the ground. Where they will encounter problems is that the "dome" isn't a 180 degree bowl, it's a full 360 degree sphere, and this can be verified by measuring the apparently fixed angles between stars. However, since Northern viewers can see the Northern circumpolar stars on the same night that the Southern viewers see the Southern circumpolar stars, one of these two viewers has to be on the "bottom" of the Earth.
From the clip of QNFEE's reconstruction he appears to have the big azimuths furthest away from the North Pole instead of closest to it as shown in the clip of the USNO data. The altitudes seem to be the right way round. Seems unlikely to be an accident. [Thanks to Petey194 I realise I gave QNFEE too much credit. He just plotted the azimuth angles ignoring the curve of the globe, and ignoring the altitudes. He then crowed over it not making sense.]
I think he has the North Pole at the top when he was constructing the lines so I suppose the bigger azimuths need to be that way round if that is the case. I just don't think he's properly taking the shape of Earth into consideration when drawing his lines. I used vectors and although I don't explicitly show it, both my vectors stayed in a plane tangent to the sphere at the observer location. I'm not certain he is accomplishing this. Even if he was, it's still not straight forward to then rotate an altitude vector the right amount in the correct direction. Anyway, to do it that way is far too much work 🤭. Far better to do it the way I did it, forcing each observer to view the star and then see if the altitude angle matches the USNO data when it the star is a sufficient distance away. If he did it that way, instead of relying on numbers to to 2dp, I'm sure he'd have more luck. He'd also benefit of having as many decimal places as he can for the Gp of the star.
@@Petey194 I was right! I have recreated QNFEE's diagram exactly in GeoGebra by reversing the order of the azimuths. With the azimuths in the correct order the lines look parallel. I will post the method in a new top level comment setting out how I do the calculations and plot the sphere and 6 rays in GeoGebra. [I was wrong I think. Petey194 showed QNFEE could have used 2D rather than 3D. Petey's reconstruction looks much closer than mine.]
@@Petey194 I just consulted HO249 Vol 1. With a calculated LHA of Aries of 331°55.3' and an observer latitude of N60°, the tables suggest an Hc of 31°12.2' and a true azimuth of 51°, very close to your values. Just weird how everything works when you assume a globe.
@@marcg1686 Yep, I suppose they don't call it the celestial sphere for nothing 😆. The output of this geometry is heavily dependant on the gha/dec of the star, in this case USNO gives 252.267043,46.022734. USNO is also very specific for Aries, 331.8808360566517 which is slightly different to the almanac. 7:45 screenshots were from the USNO site. This geometry matched the Hc/Zn perfectly when I was set to 5 decimal places.
Thank you Petey. QNFE busted again. Well done. If this was recreated on a "flat earth" for the three observers, would the observed positions, in terms of azimuth, and altitude given by QNFE actually give a distance above flat Earth to Polaris? Asking for a friend?
Why is there no flat earth software that can show where the stars are on the flat earth? Ohh that's right. Its because there is none. And the FACT that we live on a globe.
Very cool 😋and can't wait to see what you come up with. 😊 I'm sure you'll find much better ways to construct stuff than me. To work out those vectors I first pictured trapezoids in the plane which I could then use a bit of trig on to come up with those definitions, the plane being O,A,Gp for example. The last few videos I've preferred to use vectors over the traditional way of constructing things. Just remember to give vectors lower case letters and points are capital letters. Points and vectors work pretty much the same way but I'm sure you've already know this.
Petey, does that star distance slider at 7:00 work on something like a log scale? When I set up a slider with that kind of range the 100 million mile mark (let alone 4000 mile mark) is too small to register on a short bar.
Sort of. Look at the line defining where S is directly underneath the slider (n). The distance is 4.1 * 10^n. So the distance gets very big very fast. I chose 15 as the max value for the slider because 4.1e+15 km equates 433 light years or the distance Polaris is. 😊
Geogebra is just another tool that flerps will fiddle with until it gives them the impression that it supports their harebrained claims. I'd argue that Geogebra is even easier for them to misunderstand than the subtleties of water levels and ships disappearing from the bottom up.
I checked it out. All I know is the celestials do not share the same geometry as earthly or terrestrial tjings. Something strange with the sky man. And like I’d said I’m very skeptical of people. I’ve been deceived far too many times in my lifetime and I’m tired of it. I hardly trust a soul.
Fair enough but thanks for checking it out anyway. All any of us can do is take it onboard and fact check it to the best of our abilities. Thanks again 👍
@ I’ll keep my eye on your content man. I’m always trying to figure out the truth the best I can and if I am ever wrong I will always admit to it like a man. Thanks for understanding
Great upload, But no amount of logic or reality will dissuade a "Flat Earther". To admit the truth as he already knows it, will mean giving up his revenue stream from gullible followers. But it would be best if you kept it up to maybe keep a few from falling into the abyss.
I just watched the video again. My bad. I'm a total klutz. Petey stated that he derived Hc purely from GeoGebra. Consulting Stellarium would confirm the GeoGebra data.
He's actually got all his numbers correct to 2 d.p. using the Hipparcos Catalogues. That's how his app works. He just downloads the catalogues and extracts the correct data for an observer position viewing a star for a particular time and date. Even if he was careful to apply the data correctly to the surface of a sphere, which he obviously hasn't, he won't get to a single point with 2 decimal places. Far better to force the observers to view a single point that is far away and see if the angle matches.
@@Petey194 Did you see his latest video about me? It's hilarious because it's all he has and it makes him look like a 3rd grade student at a school for the mentally challenged.
I saw your latest video about me. Quick question; how old are you? And I think it's hilarious that, that is all you have and it, once again, proves you're a pathetic, feckless liar.
Very good.
You do some amazing things with that program. Love math and you show how cool it is.
Thanks Richard. I learn something new every time I play with GeoGebra.
Here is how I plotted the lines of sight in Geogebra: For each line of sight calculate the starting point on the surface and a point far away along the line of sight; Plot a sphere; Plot a ray for each line of sight.
The calculations start with a starting point at the origin (0,0,0) and an end point a long way away straight up (0,0,lots). I apply the altitude and azimuth relative to the starting point for the line of sight. Then i move the two points straight up one Earth radius. I then apply latitude and longitude to get the orientation on the Earth correct.
The rotations I am calculating are always a rotation about an axis. The positive angle is a rotation from a positive axis to towards the other positive axis. Taking A towards B about C changes A and B leaving C as is. For a positive angle D, the new A is Cos(D)A-Sin(D)B and the new B is Cos(D)B+Sin(D)A.
The orientation of X, Y and Z in Geogebra, when stood on the positive X axis, is Z straight up, and Y out to the right. The X Z plane has the prime meridian. The X Y plane has the Equator. The Z axis is the axis of rotation with the North pole on the positive end.
The line of sight is currently straight up so first subtract 90 to put it on the ground. So (Altitude - 90) is applied using Z towards X about Y.
Azimuth is applied using Y towards X about Z.
At this point Z in both points is increased by the radius of the Earth putting the starting point at the North pole.
Use -90 degrees to go to the Equator and then add the Latitude. So that is (Latitude - 90) applied using X towards Z about Y.
Longitude is applied using X towards Y about Z.
The Geogebra algebra needed are:
Sphere((0,0,0),3959)
Ray((1,2,3),(4,5,6))
(1,2,3) is the X,Y,Z for the calculated starting point, and (4,5,6) is the calculated end point. Use one Ray per line of sight.
Wow, you've really gone the extra mile to get into his head 🤭. Is there any chance you can make your activity shareable by saving it online? It's the middle of the night right now and I'm not thinking very clearly. Saying that, I've just made this quick unlisted video. ua-cam.com/video/UD6JAlIMj1k/v-deo.html
I think it's even more basic that what we both first thought.
just to add; looking at 1:47 you can see that he is just using a Paint type application by reading the top part of his screen. He has multiple files open. Some are .png file types and the one highlighted is a .jpg. This is something he has just thrown together on the spur of the moment. You can even see how he has constructed the image with the 'layers' window. I doubt very much they're screenshots from some 3D application. His point spacing is all wrong.
@@Petey194 Thanks, nicely observed.
Having got the two rotation formulas straight I have had some fun reworking my Ray calculator spreadsheet to do both Globe and Flat Earth rays.
To calculate Flat Earth the 1 Earth radius straight up move & the latitude rotation get replaced by a move along the X axis by (Latitude times distance for 1 degree). The rest is identical.
The flat Earth results are as weird as expected with the Equator ray practically on the floor by the X axis.
@@sthurston2 Darn right it's fun! 🤣 I've not had much reason to use maths in my life but I must admit getting a kick out of realising how to construct the 2 azimuth vectors I used here in terms of using trig instead of my normal method of constructing things geometrically. The bonus for me was be able to utilise the Hc and Lat angles in the process. The feeling was kind of like putting pieces in a jigsaw to complete a picture! The downside is having to deal with the flerf arguments. I have to frequently switch off from them to protect my sanity! 🤣🤣
Great stuff petey. Cant imagine there being a live debunk on any FE stream
Brian's Logic is going to be an unhappy bunny when he sees this. 🤣
I stole his title format 🤭
@@Petey194 That's gotta sting 🦂
Another nice demonstration. The tricky bit is that Polaris is NOT exactly over the pole. Being off to one side by a tiny amount (~45 arc minutes) means as you get closer to the pole, you have to look further 'to the side' (depending on your longitude vs the hour-angle of polaris at the time of observation).
If you happened to be at latitude 89 degrees 30 minutes (half the distance closer to the pole than Polaris), there are times throughout the night when you would be looking north, east, west, and even SOUTH. (but you'd still be craning your neck to look almost directly overhead).
Thanks Mike. Yep, I found what you say to be the case.
I thought Queen Fee Fee was gone? He doesn't ever drop by livestreams with his sock accounts any more and ask why nobody is trying to do his "challenge" or whatever it is he wants people to do.
Beautiful. Your geogebra demos are magnificent.
My current fantasy is to get Flat Earthers to map the "firmament"... After all, seeing the ground from the ground is tricky, but anybody can see the sky from the ground. Where they will encounter problems is that the "dome" isn't a 180 degree bowl, it's a full 360 degree sphere, and this can be verified by measuring the apparently fixed angles between stars. However, since Northern viewers can see the Northern circumpolar stars on the same night that the Southern viewers see the Southern circumpolar stars, one of these two viewers has to be on the "bottom" of the Earth.
Thanks Claire. Glad you liked! I think you'll be waiting a long time so see any kind of FE map, ground or sky. 🤭
From the clip of QNFEE's reconstruction he appears to have the big azimuths furthest away from the North Pole instead of closest to it as shown in the clip of the USNO data. The altitudes seem to be the right way round. Seems unlikely to be an accident.
[Thanks to Petey194 I realise I gave QNFEE too much credit. He just plotted the azimuth angles ignoring the curve of the globe, and ignoring the altitudes. He then crowed over it not making sense.]
I think he has the North Pole at the top when he was constructing the lines so I suppose the bigger azimuths need to be that way round if that is the case. I just don't think he's properly taking the shape of Earth into consideration when drawing his lines. I used vectors and although I don't explicitly show it, both my vectors stayed in a plane tangent to the sphere at the observer location. I'm not certain he is accomplishing this. Even if he was, it's still not straight forward to then rotate an altitude vector the right amount in the correct direction.
Anyway, to do it that way is far too much work 🤭. Far better to do it the way I did it, forcing each observer to view the star and then see if the altitude angle matches the USNO data when it the star is a sufficient distance away. If he did it that way, instead of relying on numbers to to 2dp, I'm sure he'd have more luck. He'd also benefit of having as many decimal places as he can for the Gp of the star.
@@Petey194 I was right! I have recreated QNFEE's diagram exactly in GeoGebra by reversing the order of the azimuths. With the azimuths in the correct order the lines look parallel.
I will post the method in a new top level comment setting out how I do the calculations and plot the sphere and 6 rays in GeoGebra.
[I was wrong I think. Petey194 showed QNFEE could have used 2D rather than 3D. Petey's reconstruction looks much closer than mine.]
Hi Petey, very nice. I like. 👍
I assume you used HO249 volume 1 to get Hc, or did you derive Hc from GeoGebra?
Thanks Marc 😋Yeah, GeoGebra measured it for me. No need to look it up.
@@Petey194
I just consulted HO249 Vol 1.
With a calculated LHA of Aries of 331°55.3' and an observer latitude of N60°, the tables suggest an Hc of 31°12.2' and a true azimuth of 51°, very close to your values.
Just weird how everything works when you assume a globe.
@@marcg1686 Yep, I suppose they don't call it the celestial sphere for nothing 😆. The output of this geometry is heavily dependant on the gha/dec of the star, in this case USNO gives 252.267043,46.022734. USNO is also very specific for Aries, 331.8808360566517 which is slightly different to the almanac. 7:45 screenshots were from the USNO site. This geometry matched the Hc/Zn perfectly when I was set to 5 decimal places.
Thank you Petey. QNFE busted again. Well done. If this was recreated on a "flat earth" for the three observers, would the observed positions, in terms of azimuth, and altitude given by QNFE actually give a distance above flat Earth to Polaris? Asking for a friend?
Why is there no flat earth software that can show where the stars are on the flat earth?
Ohh that's right. Its because there is none.
And the FACT that we live on a globe.
I've explained this method of measurement on several occasions and they've refused to accept it's validity.
You Gotta Lie To Flerf™
Always.
Just FYI, I'm doing some 3D stuff now, and referring back to this video every thirty seconds 😅😅
Very cool 😋and can't wait to see what you come up with. 😊 I'm sure you'll find much better ways to construct stuff than me. To work out those vectors I first pictured trapezoids in the plane which I could then use a bit of trig on to come up with those definitions, the plane being O,A,Gp for example. The last few videos I've preferred to use vectors over the traditional way of constructing things. Just remember to give vectors lower case letters and points are capital letters. Points and vectors work pretty much the same way but I'm sure you've already know this.
Petey, does that star distance slider at 7:00 work on something like a log scale? When I set up a slider with that kind of range the 100 million mile mark (let alone 4000 mile mark) is too small to register on a short bar.
Sort of. Look at the line defining where S is directly underneath the slider (n). The distance is 4.1 * 10^n. So the distance gets very big very fast. I chose 15 as the max value for the slider because 4.1e+15 km equates 433 light years or the distance Polaris is. 😊
Geogebra is just another tool that flerps will fiddle with until it gives them the impression that it supports their harebrained claims. I'd argue that Geogebra is even easier for them to misunderstand than the subtleties of water levels and ships disappearing from the bottom up.
I checked it out. All I know is the celestials do not share the same geometry as earthly or terrestrial tjings. Something strange with the sky man. And like I’d said I’m very skeptical of people. I’ve been deceived far too many times in my lifetime and I’m tired of it. I hardly trust a soul.
Fair enough but thanks for checking it out anyway. All any of us can do is take it onboard and fact check it to the best of our abilities. Thanks again 👍
@ I’ll keep my eye on your content man. I’m always trying to figure out the truth the best I can and if I am ever wrong I will always admit to it like a man. Thanks for understanding
Great upload, But no amount of logic or reality will dissuade a "Flat Earther". To admit the truth as he already knows it, will mean giving up his revenue stream from gullible followers. But it would be best if you kept it up to maybe keep a few from falling into the abyss.
Im not smart enough to prove it, but what think he did was showed the azimuth to true north or magnetic north or something like that.
I just watched the video again. My bad. I'm a total klutz. Petey stated that he derived Hc purely from GeoGebra. Consulting Stellarium would confirm the GeoGebra data.
He's actually got all his numbers correct to 2 d.p. using the Hipparcos Catalogues. That's how his app works. He just downloads the catalogues and extracts the correct data for an observer position viewing a star for a particular time and date. Even if he was careful to apply the data correctly to the surface of a sphere, which he obviously hasn't, he won't get to a single point with 2 decimal places. Far better to force the observers to view a single point that is far away and see if the angle matches.
QNFee = 🤡🤡🤡
Petey = 👑👑👑
🤩🤩🤩
thanks. this "QnFee" is odd. He seems like he's CAPABLE of doing this right, but is chosing not to. Is he just mocking FE / playing a role?
I'm certain you are right.
Yep, Qnfee fails again.
what are you doing petey ? lol
Did you like my trickynometry? 🤣
destroying your ridiculous claim
@@Petey194 Did you see his latest video about me? It's hilarious because it's all he has and it makes him look like a 3rd grade student at a school for the mentally challenged.
I saw your latest video about me. Quick question; how old are you? And I think it's hilarious that, that is all you have and it, once again, proves you're a pathetic, feckless liar.
What is Petey doing?
Taking a big steaming dump on your moronic flat earth.
ya its flat