Challenge the Round Earth Model

  • 90 Replies
  • 72562 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17030
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #60 on: November 18, 2007, 07:05:26 PM »
Oh, and where's that experimental evidence for a Round Earth I asked for?

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #61 on: November 18, 2007, 07:17:09 PM »
Where's some experimental evidence that the earth is an infinite flat-plane?

If you take a telescope and point it across the Pacific ocean from Long Beach on Vancouver Island, shouldn't you be able to see Japan according to this theory of a flat earth?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #62 on: November 18, 2007, 07:26:26 PM »
RE says: gravity. period.
so which explanation of why things don't fly of the earth makes fewer assumptions, and has fewer "we don't know, but it MUST be true JUST because WE say it's true" "answers"?
How does 'gravity' work?  You must know that, right?  After all, you claim that it is not true just because you  say it is true. 


And Antimatter would go backwards in time?  WTF?

Maybe he thinks that it's okay to just make stuff up because he feels that's all FEers do.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5178
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #63 on: November 18, 2007, 07:48:51 PM »
Perhaps Eric should read some articles before advancing his armies towards the FE gates.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17030
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #64 on: November 18, 2007, 08:11:47 PM »
Where's some experimental evidence that the earth is an infinite flat-plane?

If you take a telescope and point it across the Pacific ocean from Long Beach on Vancouver Island, shouldn't you be able to see Japan according to this theory of a flat earth?

Ever notice how distant mountains are faded and discolored? That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

Atoms and molecules are not transparent and so distant objects will be faded with distance. For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance. That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. When you look through the atmosphere you are looking through a fog of atoms and molecules. If the earth had no atmosphere those distant mountains would be as clear and sharp as the foreground.

So again, instead of providing an observation and an assumption, what experimental evidence is there demonstrating the earth as a globe?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 08:29:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #65 on: November 18, 2007, 08:28:31 PM »
How about proving that the FE sun is NOT POSSIBLE.

When the Sun is directly overhead in any place, it is NOT directly overhead at the same time in any place a few hundred miles away. A round earth explains this easily as the earths curve means that the two sticks are not parallel.

The sun being close to the earth can explain this alone, however it cannot simultaneously explain why the sun remains a constant size in the sky throughout the entire day. If this were the case the sun would start the day as a small point on the horizon then gradually grow in perceived size until at its closest point, when it would begin to shrink again until eventually disappearing entirely.

Circumference of the earth at the equator:                       40 075km
Distance traveled relative to the earths surface (per hour): 40 075km/24hours = 1 669.8km/hr
Distance to the sun under FE theory (noon):                     3000mi or 4828km ( 1mi = 1.609344 km)
Distance the sun would have to travel in 5 hours :              1669.8km/hr x 5hr = 8349km

Pythagorean theorem: a^2 + b^2 = c^2

8348km^2 + 4828km^2 = 9643km(square root of 92 998 688)

Therefore 5 hours after the sun has passed DIRECTLY overhead, the distance to the sun would now be 9643km (5990mi). If this were the true distance to the sun compared to noon (3000mi) the sun would appear to be almost exactly 1/2 the size it was at noon.
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."
-Douglas Addams

?

eric bloedow

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #66 on: November 18, 2007, 08:32:40 PM »
ok, just what experiments have YOU, Tom Bishop, PERSONALLY done? let's see some of YOUR data, and see if ANYONE else interprets it the same way!

you once claimed NASA pictures MUST be fake because they are "inconsistent". exactly WHICH pictures were they? SHOW us! or is that just your UNINFORMED opinion?

i said this on a different thread: POINT OUT the "inconsistencies" in some ACTUAL pictures!

and you think "univeral accelleration" is MORE plausible than gravity?

ok, which FE-run school did YOU go to, Tom, whose teachings YOU are "following like a dog"?
once again, you resort to cheap insults, giving RErs another reason to NOT listen to you!

oh, by the way, "astronomical parralax" actually proves the stars are MUCH farther away than the moon, and the planet jupiter. that's the UNANIMOUS VOTE of ALL astronomers!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17030
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #67 on: November 18, 2007, 08:33:16 PM »
Quote
Therefore 5 hours after the sun has passed DIRECTLY overhead, the distance to the sun would now be 9643km (5990mi). If this were the true distance to the sun compared to noon (3000mi) the sun would appear to be almost exactly 1/2 the size it was at noon.

I believed that I asked you to read through the literature before asking a question.

From Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe:

    IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light or magnification upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour.

Read more here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17030
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #68 on: November 18, 2007, 08:34:38 PM »
Quote
ok, just what experiments have YOU, Tom Bishop, PERSONALLY done? let's see some of YOUR data, and see if ANYONE else interprets it the same way!

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Here's the math:



Suppose that the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3,963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangle as in the diagram.

Looking over a distance of 1 mile, we can use the theorem of Pythagoras:

a2 = 3,9632 + 12 = 15,705,370

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.000126 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.000126 - 3,963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth.

0.000126 miles = 12 in * 5,280 ft * 0.000126 mi = 7.98 inches

Hence after one mile the earth drops approximately 8 inches.

-

Ergo, looking across 30 miles the Pythagorean theorem becomes:

a2 = 39632 +302 = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.

-

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.

There are a number of different methods to calculate the drop of the Round Earth. Go ahead and look some up try a few out. You will find that the drop while looking over 30 miles is on the order of 600 feet.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 10:33:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #69 on: November 18, 2007, 08:38:03 PM »
Where's some experimental evidence that the earth is an infinite flat-plane?

If you take a telescope and point it across the Pacific ocean from Long Beach on Vancouver Island, shouldn't you be able to see Japan according to this theory of a flat earth?

Ever notice how distant mountains are faded and discolored? That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

Atoms and molecules are not transparent and so distant objects will be faded with distance. For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance. That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. When you look through the atmosphere you are looking through a fog of atoms and molecules. If the earth had no atmosphere those distant mountains would be as clear and sharp as the foreground.

So again, instead of providing an observation, what experimental evidence is there demonstrating the earth as a globe?


  Under the right conditions, and with a powerful enough telescope, you should be able to see that far. On a clear and sunny day, you should be able to see across such a distance if the earth was flat, and be able to see the other side. Did you not tell me that is how you determined the world was flat? Well I'm thinking a bigger picture here. If the atmosphere blocked out our view that much we would not be able to see the moon and stars so clearly as we do.

I've seen the moon through a telescope on a clear night, and I could clearly see the craters and other physical features with no atmospheric haze blocking my view. Take a look at this picture.

As for the experimental evidence. Grab your telescope and look across the Atlantic from Long beach. When you dont see Japan, let me know.

And as for your math that you posted above, no one knows the exact distance to the earth's core, it is only an estimated guess. The earth is an oblong sphere and has a bulge according to the RE model.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 08:42:33 PM by Roundearther4life »

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #70 on: November 18, 2007, 08:42:19 PM »
RE says: gravity. period.
so which explanation of why things don't fly of the earth makes fewer assumptions, and has fewer "we don't know, but it MUST be true JUST because WE say it's true" "answers"?
How does 'gravity' work?  You must know that, right?  After all, you claim that it is not true just because you  say it is true. 


And Antimatter would go backwards in time?  WTF?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #71 on: November 18, 2007, 08:48:29 PM »
hm...i was under the impression the earth would drop 8 inches in the first mile, then another 8 inches in the second mile, etc. for a total of 20 feet, not 600 feet.

and did you ever try to set up, say, a pole with stripes every foot, on the other side of the bay, so you could measure the EXACT difference? that would be a PROPER experiment.

in fact, you make it sound like it would appear to be 600 feet high HALFWAY between the 2 points. that's really lousy reasoning!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #72 on: November 18, 2007, 08:50:59 PM »
hm...i was under the impression the earth would drop 8 inches in the first mile, then another 8 inches in the second mile, etc. for a total of 20 feet, not 600 feet.
Your impression is wrong, once again. 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #73 on: November 18, 2007, 08:55:05 PM »
I am well aware of the magnification effect, and i also know that it can only be seen just before the sun passes below the horizon. Besides even by FE standards the sun is many times more distant than the atmosphere is thick, a magnification of 2x at 30 degrees above the horizon is just not possible under any model. Besides I intentionally calculated the distance for 5 hours rather than 6, putting the sun a full 30 degrees above the horizon. I also intentionally made my calculation using information available to anyone. In your case we must take your word that the results of your experiment were as you say.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 08:56:51 PM by sypher001 »
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."
-Douglas Addams

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #74 on: November 18, 2007, 09:23:52 PM »
Oh, and where's that experimental evidence for a Round Earth I asked for?

I read a quite simple experiment which stated that as long as you had a table you could prove the earth was round.

Take said table to a point where the horizon is totally flat (ie looking out towards the ocean from a beach) set up the table and then crouch down.

The horizon will bulge slightly because the earth is in fact a sphere, if the earth were flat the horizon would be exactly like the table.

I HAVE DONE THIS EXPERIMENT FOR MYSELF.
Dumbshoe

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #75 on: November 18, 2007, 10:05:28 PM »

Looking over a distance of 1 mile, we can use the theorem of Pythagoras:

a2 = 3,9632 + 12 = 15,705,370

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.000126 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.000126 - 3,963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth.

0.000126 miles = 12 in * 5,280 ft * 0.000126 mi = 7.98 inches

Hence after one mile the earth drops approximately 8 inches.

-

Ergo, looking across 30 miles the Pythagorean theorem becomes:

a2 = 39632 +302 = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.


Wait a minute, 30x 8inches is 240 inches (20 feet). Your calculations are wrong and ill explain how.

Think of it this way, if you were standing on the other beach instead would you be any further away from the earths center? The radius of a circle/sphere is equal on all sides, that's what makes it the radius.

Your error comes from your arbitrary Pythagoreans theorem calculations. Your triangle would be a right angle triangle, meaning that the angle between your line of sight and the radius of the earth is 90 degrees. The only thing you measured here is the point in which your line of sight intersects with the hypotenuse of your triangle and the difference between your hypotenuse and radius of the earth (difference of 600 feet).





« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 10:12:44 PM by sypher001 »
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."
-Douglas Addams

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #76 on: November 18, 2007, 10:11:27 PM »
Wait a minute, 30x 8inches is 240 inches (20 feet).
So the Earth is linear?  That's a new one.



His calculations are for the apparent drop one would expect given the RE radius of the Earth.  They are accurate as long as x/r<<1.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #77 on: November 18, 2007, 10:35:00 PM »
His calculations are for the apparent drop one would expect given the RE radius of the Earth.  They are accurate as long as x/r<<1.

His mathematics is correct he just doesn't apply the results correctly because the point between x and the hypotenuse is atleast 600 feet over the head of anyone on the opposing beach. Tell me how exactly does he factor the 8 inch/mile drop into his second set of equations? He doesn't, as I said 600 feet is merely the DIFFERENCE between the hypotenuse and the radius of the earth for a right angle triangle. The second set of equations in no way measures the earths surface. He just made a right angle triangle using 30 and 3963 as the two sides adjacent the right angle and calculated the hypotenuse. Then he just subtracts the earths radius from the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse will always be longer than either of the sides adjacent to the 90 degree angle, measuring the difference does not give you any information which can be applied in the way he does.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 10:40:52 PM by sypher001 »
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."
-Douglas Addams

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #78 on: November 18, 2007, 10:40:49 PM »
Tell me then how exactly does he factor the 8 inch/mile drop into his second set of equations?
The Earth does not drop 8in/mile, unless you think the curve of the Earth is linear...  The Earth drops 8 inches in the first mile. 

Quote
He doesn't, as I said 600 feet is merely the DIFFERENCE between the hypotenuse and the radius of the earth for a right angle triangle.
Right.

Quote
The second set of equations in no way measures the earths surface.
He is not trying to.

Quote
He just made a right angle triangle using 30 and 3963 as the two sides adjacent the right angle and calculated the hypotenuse. Then he just subtracts the earths radius from the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse will always be longer than either of the sides adjacent to the 90 degree angle
Right.

Quote
, measuring the difference does not give you any information which can be applied in the way he does.
It gives you the apparent drop, which is what he is trying to use.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17030
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #79 on: November 18, 2007, 10:49:59 PM »
Quote
Under the right conditions, and with a powerful enough telescope, you should be able to see that far. On a clear and sunny day, you should be able to see across such a distance if the earth was flat, and be able to see the other side. Did you not tell me that is how you determined the world was flat? Well I'm thinking a bigger picture here. If the atmosphere blocked out our view that much we would not be able to see the moon and stars so clearly as we do.

As I've shown, the atmosphere blocks out these distant mountains. If the atmosphere was perfectly transparent distant mountains would not be faded or discolored. One only needs to take a look outside his window to see that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

As for the sun and moon; the atmosphere gets sharply thinner with altitude.The atmosphere is a gradient which gets thinner the higher you go. The sun and moon are able to shine through this gradient because there is less density vertically up and down than there is horizontally across the plane of the earth. The sun and moon are able to shine through the atmosphere like fog lights through fog.

As the sun sets we can tell that its light is passing through the thick atmosphere by observing the diminished intensity of the sun. The sun is less intense at its setting than it is overhead at noonday, which is why it's possible to look at the sunset for long periods of time without eye strain.

If the atmosphere was perfectly transparent, as you seem to believe, why would the sun be less intense at its setting than overhead at noonday?

Quote
Wait a minute, 30x 8inches is 240 inches (20 feet). Your calculations are wrong and ill explain how.

Think of it this way, if you were standing on the other beach instead would you be any further away from the earths center? The radius of a circle/sphere is equal on all sides, that's what makes it the radius.

No, the calculations aren't wrong. That would be true if the Globe Earth were a slope. However, since the earth is a globe curving as an arc of a circle it will drop exponentially. 

Here's another method which shows the drop over 30 miles: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17770.msg310227#msg310227

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #80 on: November 18, 2007, 10:54:49 PM »
Hey, Tom, i provided you with a simple experiment which proves the earth is round.

Maybe you should try it?
Dumbshoe

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #81 on: November 18, 2007, 11:06:04 PM »
*Mental note, in the fiture don't try arguing mathematics at 3am while you're drunk*

I knew your mathematics were correct it just sounded to me like you were saying that if the earth were round the other beach should be 600 feet below your field of vision.

So actually i guess it would be an error in interpreting what you were saying on my part. Frigin English language being so easy to misinterpret sometimes... i suppose alcohol doesn't help much with that either... 

*Mental note, disregard previous mental note and go get some sleep*

Night
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."
-Douglas Addams

?

eric bloedow

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #82 on: November 19, 2007, 07:49:19 AM »
ok, i get it: Tom says the horizon looks flat to HIS eyes, therefore the world MUST be flat, and the MILLIONS of people who look at the SAME horizon and think it looks curved must ALL be wrong!

that's his "proof". period. everything else he says is just quotes from other FErs, which he doesn't understand himself! for example, in one of the books he sites (i forgot which), the author calculates a drop of 6 inches per mile, not 8!

so Tom doesn't believe in space travel, but he DOES believe that pilots and ship captians can magically make a 60,000 mile trip seem like 1,500 miles? (circumnavigating antarctica)

and the air at high altitude is much clearer and more transparent than at low altitude, so people on top of a mountain or on board an airplane can see MUCH farther. so on the FE, someone could fly high enough to se EVERY part of the earth at one time!
but on the Real Earth, it's not possible to see more than half of earth at one time!

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #83 on: November 19, 2007, 08:02:29 AM »
so on the FE, someone could fly high enough to se EVERY part of the earth at one time!

No, you can't. Period.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #84 on: November 19, 2007, 08:42:49 AM »
Quote
ok, just what experiments have YOU, Tom Bishop, PERSONALLY done? let's see some of YOUR data, and see if ANYONE else interprets it the same way!

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Here's the math:



Suppose that the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3,963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangle as in the diagram.

Looking over a distance of 1 mile, we can use the theorem of Pythagoras:

a2 = 3,9632 + 12 = 15,705,370

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.000126 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.000126 - 3,963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth.

0.000126 miles = 12 in * 5,280 ft * 0.000126 mi = 7.98 inches

Hence after one mile the earth drops approximately 8 inches.

-

Ergo, looking across 30 miles the Pythagorean theorem becomes:

a2 = 39632 +302 = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.

-

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.

There are a number of different methods to calculate the drop of the Round Earth. Go ahead and look some up try a few out. You will find that the drop while looking over 30 miles is on the order of 600 feet.

You're such a damn liar Tom. And this math is incorrect. Why do you use a flawed model?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17030
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #85 on: November 19, 2007, 08:53:23 AM »
Hey, Tom, i provided you with a simple experiment which proves the earth is round.

Maybe you should try it?

I've tried it.

The earth is perfectly flat.

The earth is not even curved from the top of Mt. Everest: http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html

Quote
And this math is incorrect. Why do you use a flawed model?

The math isn't incorrect. Do you not believe in the Pythagorean theorem now?

Your version of the math even gives about the same results. A 600 foot drop over 30 miles.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 08:56:46 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #86 on: November 19, 2007, 09:01:53 AM »
Hey, Tom, i provided you with a simple experiment which proves the earth is round.

Maybe you should try it?

I've tried it.

The earth is perfectly flat.

The earth is not even curved from the top of Mt. Everest: http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html

Quote
And this math is incorrect. Why do you use a flawed model?

The math isn't incorrect. Do you not believe in the Pythagorean theorem now?

Your version of the math even gives about the same results. A 600 foot drop over 30 miles.

Pythagorean theorem is for triangles. This is not a triangle. It's an arc. You increase your distance to 100 miles and then try your maths against mine.

Your math is wrong. And you're still lying, there's no way you can see the entire beach from 30 miles away, unless the beach is on a cliff. Or you're looking at the wrong beach.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #87 on: November 19, 2007, 09:02:23 AM »
Oh, and where's that experimental evidence for a Round Earth I asked for?

Possible terrestrial experiments:

  • Foucault pendulum  (Pendulum conspiricy? Antimoon?)
  • Objects behind the horizon compared to RE calculated distance to horizon √(2Rh+h2).  (Optical illusion / Magic telescopes?)
  • Blocking of radio waves due to earth's curvature compared to calculated values.  Used all the time by telecoms industry.   (blocking atmosphere? Snell's law?)
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #88 on: November 19, 2007, 09:14:16 AM »
Tom's own Bedford Canal experiment is an experimental proof that the Earth is round.

"At the point chosen for all the experiments the river was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney. The most famous of the observations, and the one that was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available, involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length. As the surface of the water was assumed to be level, the discovery that the middle pole, when viewed carefully through a theodolite, was almost three feet higher than the poles at each end was finally accepted as a new proof that the surface of the earth was indeed curved."
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

eric bloedow

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #89 on: November 19, 2007, 01:02:01 PM »
ok, here's some more experiments:
items needed: a heavy object, and a scale. (spring-type, not balance)

1) take the object to a place on the equator and weigh it.
2) take the same object to a different place farther north OR south, and weigh it again.

notice the slight DIFFERENCE between the 2 measurements!
there's a good proof that the earth DOES rotate. Tom assumes that earth's rotation would send everything flying off into space in RE, but in fact the difference is barely noticeable.

experiment 2:

1)take the heavy object to a low place (near sea level) and weigh it.
2)take the same object to a high place (a mountaintop) and weigh it again.

again, there is a difference! this difference is explained by newton and einstein, but NOT by UA!

side note: this reminds me of an old sci-fi story: "skylark 3". the hero was proparing to test something, and his partner was concerned that the gadget would BLOCK GRAVITY, making him fly off into space. the hero then did some calculations, and concluded that if it did, he would fly upward at 110 miles per hour!
he put on a spacesuit and jetpack, then tested it, and he did fly off, but was able to come back.