The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on September 15, 2013, 10:21:45 AM
-
I'm not sure if this has been discussed in depth, but I'm curious as to how this would even begin to work on a flat Earth.
(http://www.math.cornell.edu/~mec/tripleright.jpg)
Granted, I'm not entirely sure if this has been demonstrated by a person on the Earth, but given the resources and time, it wouldn't be all too difficult.
I'm proposing that someone should try this out on our planet, to determine once and for all the answer to the question that is heatedly debated on this site.
-
Granted, I'm not entirely sure if this has been demonstrated by a person on the Earth, but given the resources and time, it wouldn't be all too difficult.
I strongly disagree. You do realize that each of those lines is half the distance from the north to south pole, right?
-
I do. I certainly was not suggesting that the journey was to be made on foot, by any means. ;D
-
Why don't you try it on earth? Walk 300 yards, turn 90 degrees, walk 300 more, turn 90 degrees and walk another 300 yards. If you aren't where you started, RE theory is the one that has questions to answer.
There is no reason the same shape can't be scaled down. And its a ball so you can start anywhere. In a field near your house if you like. All lines of latitude bisect those of longitude at 90 degrees after all.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/eu0uhx.jpg)
Zetetic reasoning if ever I saw it, that a round earth is absolute tripe.
-
You can't scale this down unless you scale down the earth, we all agree I think that on a small area the curvature of the earth does not really matter
-
You can't scale this down unless you scale down the earth, we all agree I think that on a small area the curvature of the earth does not really matter
Of course you can. Walk a smaller triangle.
-
There are lots of reasons it can't be scaled down. There becomes a problem at shorter distances because the curvature of the Earth is not readily directly observable from any point of reference. The reason the triangle on the diagram example in the OP is so large, is that the triple right triangle relies on curvature of a spherical object to do what it does.
In short, asking me to do this by walking 300 yards is absolutely just as ridiculous as asking me to draw a triple right triangle on a piece of paper. It simply can't be done if spherical curvature is not present, which on our planet, would make it only possible over huge distances.
-
There are lots of reasons it can't be scaled down. There becomes a problem at shorter distances because the curvature of the Earth is not readily directly observable from any point of reference. The reason the triangle on the diagram example in the OP is so large, is that the triple right triangle relies on curvature of a spherical object to do what it does.
In short, asking me to do this by walking 300 yards is absolutely just as ridiculous as asking me to draw a triple right triangle on a piece of paper. It simply can't be done if spherical curvature is not present, which on our planet, would make it only possible over huge distances.
Do you agree my smaller blue triangle is also correct?
That all lines of latitude bisect all lines of longitude at 90 degrees?
That earth is a ball so you could in effect start anywhere?
All of a sudden, flat earth theory starts to make a lot of sense.
-
Your smaller triangle poses a few problems.
1. We're talking about the Earth here. That's still a pretty large triangle.
2. Your fictional 2nd equator line looks more parabolic than straight.
-
Your smaller triangle poses a few problems.
1. We're talking about the Earth here. That's still a pretty large triangle.
2. Your fictional 2nd equator line looks more parabolic than straight.
1. Make the triangle 300 yards. You still get the same shape on a ball.
2. I think you know what a line of latitude looks like. And you know they bisect at 90 degrees. No matter how far from the starting point. Even 300 yards.
Unsettling isn't it? The earth is flat.
-
You could start anywhere as long as you move a long enough distance and not just a few hundred meters as you are requesting, for that small distance (relative to earth) the plane and the sphere behave the same and you know that I suppose
-
Why do I need a long distance? I just showed you. Lines of latitude always bisect at 90 degrees on a round earth. And a line of latitude can be 300 yards away. They are imaginary parallel rings running around the earth.
I know I'm right. So do you. Why are you asking about a distance I can't test when the theory should hold true for one I can test?
-
The distance has to be long enough that the curvature of the spherical object is enough to make the tip of the triangle intersect at 90 degrees. This is not possible over such a short distance because as g el said, at such a distance, the sphere-section would act as a plane. Again, I challenge you to draw a triple right triangle on a piece of paper.
Right now you're not proving the Earth is flat, you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
-
Why do I need a long distance? I just showed you. Lines of latitude always bisect at 90 degrees on a round earth. And a line of latitude can be 300 yards away. They are imaginary parallel rings running around the earth.
I know I'm right. So do you. Why are you asking about a distance I can't test when the theory should hold true for one I can test?
You know what you are saying doesn't make sense because the line you are traveling on in your diagram (the blue line) is not a straight line on a round earth. This is why you need to go all the way to the equator so that the lines traveled after doing 45° turns are always straight lines.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise. Longer distances would be better, but unless each line covers a quarter of the sphere's circumference you wouldn't get a triple right triangle, just a triangle with an interior angle of greater than one hundred eighty degrees.
This is because the smaller the distance on a sphere, the closer to planar the surface between points is. So the smaller the distance on the Earth, the smaller the total interior angle of the triangle, down to one hundred eighty degrees, or very near to it.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
Like I said, it could work if you're very precise and the lines would all be straight, but you wouldn't get a triple right triangle. Just one that has an interior angle measurably larger than would be on a plane. The larger the distance, the less precise you need to be.
That also means you would have to be ludicrously accurate at six hundred yards a leg. As in, within hundredths of a degree. A much larger distance is still necessary to rule out human or tool error.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
Like I said, it could work if you're very precise and the lines would all be straight, but you wouldn't get a triple right triangle. Just one that has an interior angle measurably larger than would be on a plane. The larger the distance, the less precise you need to be.
That also means you would have to be ludicrously accurate at six hundred yards a leg. As in, within hundredths of a degree. A much larger distance is still necessary to rule out human or tool error.
The point of the idea is to use right angles.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.
It does. you need to do some research and come back when you are ready to debate.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
And of course being a sphere you can start anywhere. So do this experiment yourself and tell me if you end up where you started. If you don't the earth is flat.
(http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/img247.gif)
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
Like I said, it could work if you're very precise and the lines would all be straight, but you wouldn't get a triple right triangle. Just one that has an interior angle measurably larger than would be on a plane. The larger the distance, the less precise you need to be.
That also means you would have to be ludicrously accurate at six hundred yards a leg. As in, within hundredths of a degree. A much larger distance is still necessary to rule out human or tool error.
The point of the idea is to use right angles.
And the point of my statement is that, even if you don't travel the necessary distance to get a triangle with three right angles, you can still get a triangle with interior angles that are impossible on a flat Earth.
It's to make the entire experiment less expensive and time consuming, and still bare out the results that can prove one way or another. I'm not saying it should be done at six hundred yards for each side, that's ridiculous, unless we can measure to the nanometer the results will be effectively the same as on a plane. I'm just saying that you need not travel tens of thousands of miles to get conclusive results.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
Like I said, it could work if you're very precise and the lines would all be straight, but you wouldn't get a triple right triangle. Just one that has an interior angle measurably larger than would be on a plane. The larger the distance, the less precise you need to be.
That also means you would have to be ludicrously accurate at six hundred yards a leg. As in, within hundredths of a degree. A much larger distance is still necessary to rule out human or tool error.
The point of the idea is to use right angles.
And the point of my statement is that, even if you don't travel the necessary distance to get a triangle with three right angles, you can still get a triangle with interior angles that are impossible on a flat Earth.
It's to make the entire experiment less expensive and time consuming, and still bare out the results that can prove one way or another. I'm not saying it should be done at six hundred yards for each side, that's ridiculous, unless we can measure to the nanometer the results will be effectively the same as on a plane. I'm just saying that you need not travel tens of thousands of miles to get conclusive results.
What is this nanometer rubbish? If you can't tell the difference between 60 degrees and 90 degrees in a 300 yard sided triangle, you are seriously inept.
-
Are you deliberately not reading the thread, he obviously said it will not be right angles at this small area, the inconsistency with a plane will come because the sum of angles will be more than 180
-
And the point of my statement is that, even if you don't travel the necessary distance to get a triangle with three right angles, you can still get a triangle with interior angles that are impossible on a flat Earth.
It's to make the entire experiment less expensive and time consuming, and still bare out the results that can prove one way or another. I'm not saying it should be done at six hundred yards for each side, that's ridiculous, unless we can measure to the nanometer the results will be effectively the same as on a plane. I'm just saying that you need not travel tens of thousands of miles to get conclusive results.
What is this nanometer rubbish? If you can't tell the difference between 60 degrees and 90 degrees in a 300 yard sided triangle, you are seriously inept.
Aevan, it's been explained why you wouldn't get ninety degrees at such a small distance multiple times. See here:
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise. Longer distances would be better, but unless each line covers a quarter of the sphere's circumference you wouldn't get a triple right triangle, just a triangle with an interior angle of greater than one hundred eighty degrees.
This is because the smaller the distance on a sphere, the closer to planar the surface between points is. So the smaller the distance on the Earth, the smaller the total interior angle of the triangle, down to one hundred eighty degrees, or very near to it.
-
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
Draw a line on a ball and then look at it from a different angle. It will appear curved. That, afterall, is why it's possible to make a triple-right triangle on a sphere.
-
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
Draw a line on a ball and then look at it from a different angle. It will appear curved. That, afterall, is why it's possible to make a triple-right triangle on a sphere.
Exactly. AEVOHEEN's suggestion is to go down to whatever angle from the north pole and then head west following lines of latitude. Well if you follow THAT line you won't make a straight line. For instance, the line of latitude at 30° N is not a straight line on a sphere. It is a curved line as you will notice if you looked at it from an angle perpendicular to 30° N. This is precisely why flight routes and shipping routes do not go straight from east to west or vice-versa and instead seem to take a curve. That curved route is actually the straight route.
We are trying to make a triangle with right angles. The lines must be straight.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.
It does. you need to do some research and come back when you are ready to debate.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
And of course being a sphere you can start anywhere. So do this experiment yourself and tell me if you end up where you started. If you don't the earth is flat.
(http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/img247.gif)
are you visually impaired? the lines in this picture are not straight lines. If you change your perspective for each line to be directly on top you will notice that they are all curved.
-
This has been pointed out before, but I want to remind it since some people seem to ignore it... You can NOT make a triple right triangle on a smaller scale. You can make triangles where each angle is >60 degrees but unless you travel a fair distance it will be less than 1 degree more. Learn some geometry before you argue on this topic (but geometry is science so you can't trust it...)
-
This has been pointed out before, but I want to remind it since some people seem to ignore it... You can NOT make a triple right triangle on a smaller scale. You can make triangles where each angle is >60 degrees but unless you travel a fair distance it will be less than 1 degree more. Learn some geometry before you argue on this topic (but geometry is science so you can't trust it...)
Being as I am the only person to have provided a source (as usual) and all I have from round earthers is hot air and bluster, I'm at the point where I get bored and wander off. Maybe one of you would actually like to examine the link I gave where a man travels in a triangle 10 miles by 10 miles and ends up where he started.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
I will then back that up with a further source to cement the fact that I am right and that you are all talk and no show.
east (st)
n.
1. Abbr. E
a. The cardinal point on the mariner's compass 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west.
Combine my two sources. Digest the information. Conclude earth is flat. Good evening gentleman, its getting late.
-
This has been pointed out before, but I want to remind it since some people seem to ignore it... You can NOT make a triple right triangle on a smaller scale. You can make triangles where each angle is >60 degrees but unless you travel a fair distance it will be less than 1 degree more. Learn some geometry before you argue on this topic (but geometry is science so you can't trust it...)
Being as I am the only person to have provided a source (as usual) and all I have from round earthers is hot air and bluster, I'm at the point where I get bored and wander off. Maybe one of you would actually like to examine the link I gave where a man travels in a triangle 10 miles by 10 miles and ends up where he started.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
I will then back that up with a further source to cement the fact that I am right and that you are all talk and no show.
east (st)
n.
1. Abbr. E
a. The cardinal point on the mariner's compass 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west.
Combine my two sources. Digest the information. Conclude earth is flat. Good evening gentleman, its getting late.
The thing about your source, it doesn't say he turned ninety degrees and faced south at his final location.
Added to that, ninety degrees latitude east at 89.85N longitude, about ten miles south of the north pole, is fifteen miles away from zero degrees latitude. So yes, he made it back to where he started. He did not make a triple right triangle.
-
On a flat earth, all triangles would have an interior angle sum of 180°. On a curved Earth, the angles wouldn't add up to 180°, though the amount it differs will depend on the size of the triangle.
While I don't know of anyone who has taken a 10,000-km tape measure to draw straight lines across half the globe, there is a great resource for straight lines across the Earth. Private commercial companies tend to do everything they can to make a profit.
Commercial airlines paths can be used as the shortest distance between cities, and these paths constantly show interior angles of over 180° (the effect is much more pronounced for large triangles).
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59862.0.html#.UjYStJK1Hsk (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59862.0.html#.UjYStJK1Hsk)
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Sphere_filled_blue.svg/200px-Sphere_filled_blue.svg.png)
See that image? Notice the angle we are viewing it from? I'd say the line of latitude we are looking directly at is about 60°N. Notice how curved that particular line of latitude is?
North and South are not the same as East and West when dealing with the earth. North and South are references to a specific magnetic point at each of the poles. East and West are simply a direction parallel to the equator. Sure, a mariner's compass we'll point you in the right direction but it doesn't know the difference either.
Notice how all lines of longitude intersect each other at the poles while lines of latitude are all parallel? The only lines that are straight on the earth are lines that you can imagine cutting the sphere directly in half. That is a straight line. That's precisely what lines of longitude do.
-
This has been pointed out before, but I want to remind it since some people seem to ignore it... You can NOT make a triple right triangle on a smaller scale. You can make triangles where each angle is >60 degrees but unless you travel a fair distance it will be less than 1 degree more. Learn some geometry before you argue on this topic (but geometry is science so you can't trust it...)
Being as I am the only person to have provided a source (as usual) and all I have from round earthers is hot air and bluster, I'm at the point where I get bored and wander off. Maybe one of you would actually like to examine the link I gave where a man travels in a triangle 10 miles by 10 miles and ends up where he started.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
I will then back that up with a further source to cement the fact that I am right and that you are all talk and no show.
east (st)
n.
1. Abbr. E
a. The cardinal point on the mariner's compass 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west.
Combine my two sources. Digest the information. Conclude earth is flat. Good evening gentleman, its getting late.
The thing about your source, it doesn't say he turned ninety degrees to the north at the last turn. Only that he turned north.
Added to that, ninety degrees latitude west/east at 89.85N longitude, about ten miles, is fifteen miles away from zero degrees latitude. So yes, he made it back to where he started. He did not make a triple right triangle.
Yeah, my dictionary definition of east should help you over this bit. But you are getting there. You'll be telling everyone how flat the earth is at work on Monday.
-
This has been pointed out before, but I want to remind it since some people seem to ignore it... You can NOT make a triple right triangle on a smaller scale. You can make triangles where each angle is >60 degrees but unless you travel a fair distance it will be less than 1 degree more. Learn some geometry before you argue on this topic (but geometry is science so you can't trust it...)
Being as I am the only person to have provided a source (as usual) and all I have from round earthers is hot air and bluster, I'm at the point where I get bored and wander off. Maybe one of you would actually like to examine the link I gave where a man travels in a triangle 10 miles by 10 miles and ends up where he started.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
I will then back that up with a further source to cement the fact that I am right and that you are all talk and no show.
east (st)
n.
1. Abbr. E
a. The cardinal point on the mariner's compass 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west.
Combine my two sources. Digest the information. Conclude earth is flat. Good evening gentleman, its getting late.
The thing about your source, it doesn't say he turned ninety degrees to the north at the last turn. Only that he turned north.
Added to that, ninety degrees latitude west/east at 89.85N longitude, about ten miles, is fifteen miles away from zero degrees latitude. So yes, he made it back to where he started. He did not make a triple right triangle.
Yeah, my dictionary definition of east should help you over this bit. But you are getting there. You'll be telling everyone how flat the earth is at work on Monday.
That's the definition of east on a compass. I didn't know we were talking about compasses. I thought we were talking about the earth. Get your cherry picking off this thread and stop embarrassing yourself.
east [iːst]
n
1. (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) the direction along a parallel towards the sunrise, at 90° to north; the direction of the earth's rotation
-
That's the definition of east on a compass. I didn't know we were talking about compasses. I thought we were talking about the earth.
Do compasses not work on earth?
It's actually the definition of East full stop. Geographic east as well as how a magnetic compass works.
Its not my fault that round earth theory has got itself confused. It's a terrible theory.
-
This has been pointed out before, but I want to remind it since some people seem to ignore it... You can NOT make a triple right triangle on a smaller scale. You can make triangles where each angle is >60 degrees but unless you travel a fair distance it will be less than 1 degree more. Learn some geometry before you argue on this topic (but geometry is science so you can't trust it...)
Being as I am the only person to have provided a source (as usual) and all I have from round earthers is hot air and bluster, I'm at the point where I get bored and wander off. Maybe one of you would actually like to examine the link I gave where a man travels in a triangle 10 miles by 10 miles and ends up where he started.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
I will then back that up with a further source to cement the fact that I am right and that you are all talk and no show.
east (st)
n.
1. Abbr. E
a. The cardinal point on the mariner's compass 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west.
Combine my two sources. Digest the information. Conclude earth is flat. Good evening gentleman, its getting late.
The thing about your source, it doesn't say he turned ninety degrees to the north at the last turn. Only that he turned north.
Added to that, ninety degrees latitude west/east at 89.85N longitude, about ten miles, is fifteen miles away from zero degrees latitude. So yes, he made it back to where he started. He did not make a triple right triangle.
Yeah, my dictionary definition of east should help you over this bit. But you are getting there. You'll be telling everyone how flat the earth is at work on Monday.
I see no reason your definition invalidates anything. He walked ten miles due south, turned ninety degrees east at 89.85N longitude. He walked for ten miles due east. He then turned ninety degrees northward and walked ten miles, completing an angle that isn't ninety degrees. To clarify, if he started walking south at zero degrees latitude, he'd have turned northward again at sixty degrees east latitude.
Ah, I see where I screwed up, I mixed the final turn and final angle in my head, and it came out a bit jumbled. I'll fix it, sorry about that.
-
Ah, I see where I screwed up, I mixed the final turn and final angle in my head, and it came out a bit jumbled. I'll fix it, sorry about that.
Yeah, its a good puzzle. Flat Earthers aren't as dumb as the media makes us out to be.
-
That's the definition of east on a compass. I didn't know we were talking about compasses. I thought we were talking about the earth.
Do compasses not work on earth?
It's actually the definition of East full stop. Geographic east as well as how a magnetic compass works.
Its not my fault that round earth theory has got itself confused. It's a terrible theory.
You just don't like real life. It doesn't make it a terrible theory.
It's appropriate to have different definitions to depict east on the earth and east on a compass. Otherwise people like you will think they have a brain.
-
That's the definition of east on a compass. I didn't know we were talking about compasses. I thought we were talking about the earth.
Do compasses not work on earth?
It's actually the definition of East full stop. Geographic east as well as how a magnetic compass works.
Its not my fault that round earth theory has got itself confused. It's a terrible theory.
You just don't like real life. It doesn't make it a terrible theory.
It's appropriate to have different definitions to depict east on the earth and east on a compass. Otherwise people like you will think they have a brain.
Are you suggesting that East on the earth is not 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west?
So far I have soaked up your condescending mocking with good grace, but if you continue and add insult to injury by being stupid, I'm going to have to humiliate you in front of all the Round Earth guests that are reading this thread. Right now there are 104 of them. some of them likely read here regulalry. They are likely thinking, "Go on Thork, you haven't really let rip at a noob for ages. Kill this one. No one will miss it."
-
Ah, I see where I screwed up, I mixed the final turn and final angle in my head, and it came out a bit jumbled. I'll fix it, sorry about that.
Yeah, its a good puzzle. Flat Earthers aren't as dumb as the media makes us out to be.
Depends on who you ask. Also:
I see no reason your definition invalidates anything. He walked ten miles due south, turned ninety degrees east at 89.85N longitude. He walked for ten miles due east. He then turned ninety degrees northward and walked ten miles, completing an angle that isn't ninety degrees. To clarify, if he started walking south at zero degrees latitude, he'd have turned northward again at sixty degrees east latitude.
Ah, I see where I screwed up, I mixed the final turn and final angle in my head, and it came out a bit jumbled. I'll fix it, sorry about that.
My point applies. He still wouldn't have ended at ninety degrees east latitude, only sixty degrees. And you'll notice that, yes, the angles of the triangle are in fact more than one hundred eighty degrees, so although not a triple right triangle, it does demonstrate the point. I'm with you that such a huge distance need not be covered, but a fairly large one does for it to be relevant.
You're right in that it's possible at a smaller scale, although not with the exact same results, but a scale of miles is still enough for curvature to be present easily. If you like, see the infamous ENaG for it's chart of drop distances on a round Earth.
-
That's the definition of east on a compass. I didn't know we were talking about compasses. I thought we were talking about the earth.
Do compasses not work on earth?
It's actually the definition of East full stop. Geographic east as well as how a magnetic compass works.
Its not my fault that round earth theory has got itself confused. It's a terrible theory.
You just don't like real life. It doesn't make it a terrible theory.
It's appropriate to have different definitions to depict east on the earth and east on a compass. Otherwise people like you will think they have a brain.
Are you suggesting that East on the earth is not 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west?
So far I have soaked up your condescending mocking with good grace, but if you continue and add insult to injury by being stupid, I'm going to have to humiliate you in front of all the Round Earth guests that are reading this thread. Right now there are 104 of them. some of them likely read here regulalry. They are likely thinking, "Go on Thork, you haven't really let rip at a noob for ages. Kill this one. No one will miss it."
Indeed, I am suggesting it is not a perfect 90°. It is a precise at the equator but not everywhere else.
Many maps show circles of latitude as straight lines, but a circle of latitude is not (except the Equator) the shortest distance between two points on the Earth. In other words, circles of latitude (except for the Equator) are not great circles (see also great-circle distance), but are rhumb lines. So an aircraft flying between a European and North American city that share the same latitude will fly farther north, over Greenland for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_latitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_latitude)
-
and in case you don't know what a great circle is...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Great_circle_hemispheres.png/220px-Great_circle_hemispheres.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle)
It is the only true straight line on the earth.
-
and in case you don't know what a great circle is...
I have an ATPL. ::)
-
and in case you don't know what a great circle is...
I have an ATPL. ::)
well then why the hell don't you know that a great circle is the only true straight line? Why are you trying to say the line of latitude at 10°N is a straight line?
-
Why are you trying to say the line of latitude at 10°N is a straight line?
Feel free to quote where I said that.
Your weasel words do not hide your intent to troll.
-
Feel free to quote where I said that.
Your weasel words do not hide your intent to troll.
Ok, I will...
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.
Seems you said it there and then there is the implication here that they always bisect at 90°...
Why do I need a long distance? I just showed you. Lines of latitude always bisect at 90 degrees on a round earth. And a line of latitude can be 300 yards away. They are imaginary parallel rings running around the earth.
and here....
Are you suggesting that East on the earth is not 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west?
and then when you say things like this...
Being as I am the only person to have provided a source (as usual) and all I have from round earthers is hot air and bluster
it is irritating and since it is apparently only you that is full of hot air and bluster.
-
They do always bisect at 90 degrees. You are making such a fool of yourself.
MeridianAn imaginary arc on the Earth's surface from the North Pole to the South Pole that associates all locations running along it with a given longitude. The position of a point on the meridian is given by its intersecting latitude. Each meridian is perpendicular to all circles of latitude at the intersection points.
-
I have an ATPL. ::)
I find that particularly hard to believe, unless you are only pretending to be an imbecile.
Anyway, the point is that to make the triple-right-triangle, the sides must be 1/4 segments of great circles. This means there is no left/right deviation while traveling the line, unlike Ævan's 300yd example, or the 10 mile sided triangle in the riddle.
Spherical excess is present in smaller triangles though, even Rowbotham encountered it, although he dismissed it (incorrectly) as equipment error: ENaG - Spherical Excess (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za43.htm)
-
I find that particularly hard to believe, unless you are only pretending to be an imbecile.
Coming from someone who can't spell 'scientific', I'm not going to lose any sleep.
-
I find that particularly hard to believe, unless you are only pretending to be an imbecile.
Coming from someone who can't spell 'scientific', I'm not going to lose any sleep.
Typo...
What about the rest of my post? Or are you going to ignore it, just like FE's always ignore pertinent points?
-
They do always bisect at 90 degrees. You are making such a fool of yourself.
MeridianAn imaginary arc on the Earth's surface from the North Pole to the South Pole that associates all locations running along it with a given longitude. The position of a point on the meridian is given by its intersecting latitude. Each meridian is perpendicular to all circles of latitude at the intersection points.
If a line of latitude is not a straight line (except for the equator), which I have conclusively shown you, then it stands to reason that while it is exceptionally close to being perfectly perpendicular to a meridian, it's not quite.
This is not much different than the difference between a FE'r and RE'r anyways is it? When we debate about the curvature of the Earth the FE'r says it is perfectly flat because it looks flat but really it's not quite. The curvature is so slight but at earths enormous size that slight curvature forms a sphere. The same goes with lines of latitude. It is almost straight, but not quite and at Earths enormous size that slightly less than straight line will change everything, especially in arguments like this.
Where, if the starting point is the north pole and if you intend to take three 45° turns to form a triangle, you'll need to get your ass down to the equator.
-
By the way saying stuff like this...
You are making such a fool of yourself.
is not benefiting you, it just makes you look desperate.
Don't be mad though alright, we all good, I just needed to correct you.
-
If a line of latitude is not a straight line (except for the equator), which I have conclusively shown you, then it stands to reason that while it is exceptionally close to being perfectly perpendicular to a meridian, it's not quite.
well they are perfectly perpendicular, so somewhere your reasoning has gone arry. Whilst re-examining I suggest you start with your assumptions about earth's shape.
What about the rest of my post? Or are you going to ignore it, just like FE's always ignore pertinent points?
Pertinent? pffft! I ignored it because you haven't bothered to read the thread you just jumped into.
-
well they are perfectly perpendicular, so somewhere your reasoning has gone arry. Whilst re-examining I suggest you start with your assumptions about earth's shape.
Whatever helps you sleep better. In the meantime I suggest you get started on some reading material that might help you the next time you try to sound like you know what you are talking about.
http://math.about.com/od/geometry/Geometry_Tutorials_Lessons_and_Tips.htm (http://math.about.com/od/geometry/Geometry_Tutorials_Lessons_and_Tips.htm)
-
well they are perfectly perpendicular, so somewhere your reasoning has gone arry. Whilst re-examining I suggest you start with your assumptions about earth's shape.
Whatever helps you sleep better. In the meantime I suggest you get started on some reading material that might help you the next time you try to sound like you know what you are talking about.
http://math.about.com/od/geometry/Geometry_Tutorials_Lessons_and_Tips.htm (http://math.about.com/od/geometry/Geometry_Tutorials_Lessons_and_Tips.htm)
I'm satisfied that you are an idiot. I'll leave this thread to you.
Lines of longitude, called meridians, run perpendicular to lines of latitude
What Is Longitude?
Lines of longitude, called meridians, run perpendicular to lines of latitude
a network of meridians stretching from pole to pole and of lines of latitude perpendicular to them
Latitudes are the lines that run parallel to the equator and measure the north-south direction, whereas longitudes or meridians, the vertical lines running perpendicular to the latitudes measure the east-west direction.
-
What about the rest of my post? Or are you going to ignore it, just like FE's always ignore pertinent points?
Pertinent? pffft! I ignored it because you haven't bothered to read the thread you just jumped into.
Read it (all 3 pages), saw that certain points hadn't been addressed, and decided to contribute, more or less as follows:
A triple right triangle requires its sides to be 1/4 segments of great circles, no more, no less. (a point you seem ignorant of)
Spherical excess can be (and has been) detected at smaller scales. (a point worth making)
-
well they are perfectly perpendicular, so somewhere your reasoning has gone arry. Whilst re-examining I suggest you start with your assumptions about earth's shape.
Whatever helps you sleep better. In the meantime I suggest you get started on some reading material that might help you the next time you try to sound like you know what you are talking about.
http://math.about.com/od/geometry/Geometry_Tutorials_Lessons_and_Tips.htm (http://math.about.com/od/geometry/Geometry_Tutorials_Lessons_and_Tips.htm)
I'm satisfied that you are an idiot. I'll leave this thread to you.
Lines of longitude, called meridians, run perpendicular to lines of latitude
What Is Longitude?
Lines of longitude, called meridians, run perpendicular to lines of latitude
a network of meridians stretching from pole to pole and of lines of latitude perpendicular to them
Latitudes are the lines that run parallel to the equator and measure the north-south direction, whereas longitudes or meridians, the vertical lines running perpendicular to the latitudes measure the east-west direction.
Sigh. You still don't understand what a great circle is and why that is a true straight line. Some pilot.
-
I don't think he's a pilot either.
-
While I'm here..
Quote from: Pyrolizard on Today at 11:18:13 AM
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like
Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on Today at 11:09:44 AM
you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
I think you took that a little out of context and didn't read his whole post. At 300 yards on Earth it still would never be a large enough distance to create a triple right triangle... just an abnormal triangle with a >180 degree interior angle sum. This is about a triple right triangle or something at least closer to it.
-
I have found this definition of perpendicular:
per·pen·dic·u·lar (pûrpn-dky-lr)
adv.
4. A vertical or nearly vertical line or plane.
It could explain why in this case it can still be appropriate to use that word when describing the intersection of latitude and longitude because clearly they are not perfectly perpendicular.
-
I have found this definition of perpendicular:
per·pen·dic·u·lar (pûrpn-dky-lr)
adv.
4. A vertical or nearly vertical line or plane.
It could explain why in this case it can still be appropriate to use that word when describing the intersection of latitude and longitude because clearly they are not perfectly perpendicular.
The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.
-
I have found this definition of perpendicular:
per·pen·dic·u·lar (pûrpn-dky-lr)
adv.
4. A vertical or nearly vertical line or plane.
It could explain why in this case it can still be appropriate to use that word when describing the intersection of latitude and longitude because clearly they are not perfectly perpendicular.
The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.
remember that word nearly? As in you nearly made a good point?
-
The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.
If your requirement for 'perpendicular' is that the reference line/plane be devoid of curvature, then longitude lines cannot be perpendicular to latitude lines, as the latter always curve (with the exception of the equator on a round earth, at least in a North/South sense).
This is all rather pointless anyway, as a triple right triangle does not have to be done on lines of latitude and longitude (although that would make it much easier). It could theoretically be done in any arbitrary location, in any arbitrary direction. All that is required is to travel 1/4 of the circumference each time, with 90° turns.
-
The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.
If your requirement for 'perpendicular' is that the reference line/plane be devoid of curvature, then longitude lines cannot be perpendicular to latitude lines, as the latter always curve (with the exception of the equator on a round earth, at least in a North/South sense).
This is all rather pointless anyway, as a triple right triangle does not have to be done on lines of latitude and longitude (although that would make it much easier). It could theoretically be done in any arbitrary location, in any arbitrary direction. All that is required is to travel 1/4 of the circumference each time, with 90° turns.
This is correct. It's just easier to visualize if one of the points is the north pole.
-
The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.
If your requirement for 'perpendicular' is that the reference line/plane be devoid of curvature, then longitude lines cannot be perpendicular to latitude lines, as the latter always curve (with the exception of the equator on a round earth, at least in a North/South sense).
This is all rather pointless anyway, as a triple right triangle does not have to be done on lines of latitude and longitude (although that would make it much easier). It could theoretically be done in any arbitrary location, in any arbitrary direction. All that is required is to travel 1/4 of the circumference each time, with 90° turns.
Well, since this experiment has never and will never be done by anyone, the point was moot to begin with. Why are we even debating whether or not this is possible? It is like when RE'ers trying to argue that if Earth was flat, then it would be possible to fly to the edge, even though he nor I ever plan to partake in an experiment to find out.
-
The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.
If your requirement for 'perpendicular' is that the reference line/plane be devoid of curvature, then longitude lines cannot be perpendicular to latitude lines, as the latter always curve (with the exception of the equator on a round earth, at least in a North/South sense).
This is all rather pointless anyway, as a triple right triangle does not have to be done on lines of latitude and longitude (although that would make it much easier). It could theoretically be done in any arbitrary location, in any arbitrary direction. All that is required is to travel 1/4 of the circumference each time, with 90° turns.
Well, since this experiment has never and will never be done by anyone, the point was moot to begin with. Why are we even debating whether or not this is possible? It is like when RE'ers trying to argue that if Earth was flat, then it would be possible to fly to the edge, even though he nor I ever plan to partake in an experiment to find out.
I agree. It does seem appropriate that a FE'r (not talking to you in this instance jroa) would have trouble thinking about things in a 3-dimensional sense though.
-
I was just trying to propose a way to stop the arguments once and for all. Someone should do it and see what happens and then we'll know.
-
I was just trying to propose a way to stop the arguments once and for all. Someone should do it and see what happens and then we'll know.
It's a good point, but on the proposed scale just gets thrown in the "too hard" basket.
The good news is that it can be (and has been) done on a smaller scale, not by making a triple right triangle, but rather one where the angles invariably add to more than 180°. As this is only possible on a round earth, it's pretty good proof. Not good enough for FEs of course, you could take them to the moon and show them the beauty of our round earth, and they'd still say it was flat!
-
On a round earth there is no such thing as a straight line when projected onto a flat surface. The 90 triple triangle is made of arcs, not straight lines. You can scale down the triple triangle by using headings and maintaining those headings. Travel at 180 on a compass, the 90 or 270 and maintain that heading, then travel at 0. Make sure you travel the same distance each time, you have your triple triangle on RE. There is nothing special about the pole and equator. I believe that was the point Thork was trying to lead you all to without holding your hand to get there.
-
I never once said there was anything special about the pole or the equator.
And for all intents and purposes, on a round Earth, the lines are straight.
That's why this would be pretty good evidence for either side, depending on how it went.
You could scale it down as well,
If it creates a triangle with an interior angle sum of >180 degrees, the Earth is round.
If it creates a square missing one of its sides, the Earth is flat.
Try it out.
-
On a round earth there is no such thing as a straight line when projected onto a flat surface. The 90 triple triangle is made of arcs, not straight lines. You can scale down the triple triangle by using headings and maintaining those headings. Travel at 180 on a compass, the 90 or 270 and maintain that heading, then travel at 0. Make sure you travel the same distance each time, you have your triple triangle on RE. There is nothing special about the pole and equator. I believe that was the point Thork was trying to lead you all to without holding your hand to get there.
Apparently you don't get it either. Everyone is aware that these are circles or as you put it, arcs. However going straight south (if starting at the north pole) a 90° right turn is only possible at the equator if the goal again is to make 3 right angles to make a right triangle. Turning right at any other line of latitude would not accomplish this. No wonder you became a FE'r.
-
Is 90o not perpendicular to 0 or 180o? I'll admit that traveling any less than 1/4 of the earth's circumference at a given latitude will give you two 90s and one smaller angle on RE. But again, there is nothing special about the pole and equator other than that is what our coordinate system is based from. The "pole" could be any other point on Earth and work fine.
-
Is 90o not perpendicular to 0 or 180o? I'll admit that traveling any less than 1/4 of the earth's circumference at a given latitude will give you two 90s and one smaller angle on RE. But again, there is nothing special about the pole and equator other than that is what our coordinate system is based from. The "pole" could be any other point on Earth and work fine.
Correct. I'm not saying there is anything special about it. My example is IF the starting location is the north pole. It is being used to make the discussion more simple. No matter where you start you have to take out an entire 1/4 segment of the sphere. In all the examples with thork we started from there and he showed that he didn't understand. He kept saying that we can do it with a smaller triangle which is false. You saying he was holding our hands means you either don't get it yourself or you didn't read the thread. Since this latest comment now shows that you do get it, it follows that you just didn't read it. Please avoid posting if you don't have the time to read.
-
I read it, trust me. Doesn't change the fact that you have been saying it's only possible if you go to the equator from a pole, which is demonstrably false. Even if you followed Thork's experiment, you'd get more than 180o on RE so it would still prove one way or another, granted 300 yards is miniscule comparative to the earth and supposed curvature, a few miles would work better.
-
I read it, trust me. Doesn't change the fact that you have been saying it's only possible if you go to the equator from a pole, which is demonstrably false. Even if you followed Thork's experiment, you'd get more than 180o on RE so it would still prove one way or another, granted 300 yards is miniscule comparative to the earth and supposed curvature, a few miles would work better.
I didn't say you have to start from a pole. I just explained that to you. Also, you are wrong, you can't do this by going a few miles. The fact that FE'rs can't understand that is a good example of the low intellect needed to think earth is flat.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.
It does. you need to do some research and come back when you are ready to debate.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
And of course being a sphere you can start anywhere. So do this experiment yourself and tell me if you end up where you started. If you don't the earth is flat.
(http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/img247.gif)
Did it. Ended up at the same spot. Earth is round. Good game everyone we can all go home.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.
It does. you need to do some research and come back when you are ready to debate.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
And of course being a sphere you can start anywhere. So do this experiment yourself and tell me if you end up where you started. If you don't the earth is flat.
(http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/img247.gif)
Did it. Ended up at the same spot. Earth is round. Good game everyone we can all go home.
I bet you didn't actually do it though. That is kind of mean. AEvan raises a good point, and it should be respected. Has this triple-right-triangle ever been done on the Earth?
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.
It does. you need to do some research and come back when you are ready to debate.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
And of course being a sphere you can start anywhere. So do this experiment yourself and tell me if you end up where you started. If you don't the earth is flat.
(http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/img247.gif)
Did it. Ended up at the same spot. Earth is round. Good game everyone we can all go home.
I bet you didn't actually do it though. That is kind of mean. AEvan raises a good point, and it should be respected. Has this triple-right-triangle ever been done on the Earth?
I'll go out on a limb and say with the confidence of a google search and common sense, no. Nobody has had the time, resources, and reason to confirm the shape of the Earth in such a roundabout way as to travel three quarters of the circumference of the Earth. Much of which would be over water, and would likely have to be confirmed multiple times to be sure the results were accurate.
There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale. It's a very common thing, in fact.
-
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.
I always find comments like you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.
It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.
It does. you need to do some research and come back when you are ready to debate.
Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml)
And of course being a sphere you can start anywhere. So do this experiment yourself and tell me if you end up where you started. If you don't the earth is flat.
(http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/img247.gif)
Did it. Ended up at the same spot. Earth is round. Good game everyone we can all go home.
I bet you didn't actually do it though. That is kind of mean. AEvan raises a good point, and it should be respected. Has this triple-right-triangle ever been done on the Earth?
I'll go out on a limb and say with the confidence of a google search and common sense, no. Nobody has had the time, resources, and reason to confirm the shape of the Earth in such a roundabout way as to travel three quarters of the circumference of the Earth. Much of which would be over water, and would likely have to be confirmed multiple times to be sure the results were accurate.
There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale. It's a very common thing, in fact.
Great! Do you have a link? An article citation? I'm not being sarcastic by the way (sometimes you can't tell in a forum), but we should all be up to date, RE'ers or FE'ers, on common observations.
-
I'll go out on a limb and say with the confidence of a google search and common sense, no. Nobody has had the time, resources, and reason to confirm the shape of the Earth in such a roundabout way as to travel three quarters of the circumference of the Earth. Much of which would be over water, and would likely have to be confirmed multiple times to be sure the results were accurate.
There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale. It's a very common thing, in fact.
Great! Do you have a link? An article citation? I'm not being sarcastic by the way (sometimes you can't tell in a forum), but we should all be up to date, RE'ers or FE'ers, on common observations.
I'll do my best to produce some third party citation that can be considered reliable when I get off work tomorrow, or when I get some free time. As it stands it's midnight and I need to get up at four and be ready to operate heavy machinery by five, so sleep is needed soon. Sorry about being such a tease with information. :P
-
I'll go out on a limb and say with the confidence of a google search and common sense, no. Nobody has had the time, resources, and reason to confirm the shape of the Earth in such a roundabout way as to travel three quarters of the circumference of the Earth. Much of which would be over water, and would likely have to be confirmed multiple times to be sure the results were accurate.
There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale. It's a very common thing, in fact.
Great! Do you have a link? An article citation? I'm not being sarcastic by the way (sometimes you can't tell in a forum), but we should all be up to date, RE'ers or FE'ers, on common observations.
I'll do my best to produce some third party citation that can be considered reliable when I get off work tomorrow, or when I get some free time. As it stands it's midnight and I need to get up at four and be ready to operate heavy machinery by five, so sleep is needed soon. Sorry about being such a tease with information. :P
No no, that's alright. I look forward to reading it later.
-
There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale. It's a very common thing, in fact.
Great! Do you have a link? An article citation? I'm not being sarcastic by the way (sometimes you can't tell in a forum), but we should all be up to date, RE'ers or FE'ers, on common observations.
May I?
ENaG: Spherical Excess (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za43.htm)
As far as the claims of "collimation" being the culprit for these measurements, a little reading on the matter soon shows that to be bunkum.
-
There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale. It's a very common thing, in fact.
Great! Do you have a link? An article citation? I'm not being sarcastic by the way (sometimes you can't tell in a forum), but we should all be up to date, RE'ers or FE'ers, on common observations.
May I?
ENaG: Spherical Excess (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za43.htm)
As far as the claims of "collimation" being the culprit for these measurements, a little reading on the matter soon shows that to be bunkum.
Thank you! As I read it, I say to myself: Hmm, can we do better? Are there more modern measurements?
"Collimation" does exist, and one cannot throw out the possibility of it skewing the measurements. However, the collimation effect is instrument-dependent. Different instruments will collimate differently. So by repeating the measurements over a hundred times, we need to know what they mean by that. Did they use different instruments?
Also, one must provide a calculation for the collimation and show that it produces an effect as great as the spherical excess they were measuring. We cannot simply just say: collimation exists and it is what did it. We have to SHOW it did. This is the only way to be sure we are not mistaken.
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).
I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).
I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
No Seeker that isn't what we claim. This thread is about using a right triangle and using that it can only be done with an entire quarter segment of a sphere. As already stated it can be done with a SIMILAR experiment but not at all the EXACT same experiment. That is one where instead of a right triangle you use any triangle and this is because if the earth is flat then the sum of angles will be 180° but on a sphere it won't be. Of course you'll need to go a decent distance to do this but not nearly as bad as 10,000 miles per line.
No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).
I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.
It is dumb because it isn't easily tested. All it is saying is "If RE is true, then this is true." Actual evidence is "If this is true, RE is true."
.. Unless you have a method by which we can test this.
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).
I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
Where has "RE science" claimed it works scaled down?
Also, the moment you bend the paper, you lose the triangle.
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.
It is dumb because it isn't easily tested. All it is saying is "If RE is true, then this is true." Actual evidence is "If this is true, RE is true."
.. Unless you have a method by which we can test this.
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).
I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
Where has "RE science" claimed it works scaled down?
Also, the moment you bend the paper, you lose the triangle.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html)
No constraint is made forcing the side of the triangle to equal the radius of curvature.
As to your second question: Try it. With paper. Put the triangle on a baseball, or beach ball, or your head! It works just fine.
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.
It is dumb because it isn't easily tested. All it is saying is "If RE is true, then this is true." Actual evidence is "If this is true, RE is true."
.. Unless you have a method by which we can test this.
You said we were dumb for using a euclidean term for discussing non-euclidean geometry. That was the point I was referring too.
Also I have offered a simpler experiment. Not easy but far more feasible. Not to suggest anyone would actually do it but a point nonetheless.
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.
It is dumb because it isn't easily tested. All it is saying is "If RE is true, then this is true." Actual evidence is "If this is true, RE is true."
.. Unless you have a method by which we can test this.
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).
I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
Where has "RE science" claimed it works scaled down?
Also, the moment you bend the paper, you lose the triangle.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html)
No constraint is made forcing the side of the triangle to equal the radius of curvature.
As to your second question: Try it. With paper. Put the triangle on a baseball, or beach ball, or your head! It works just fine.
and which part of this specifies RIGHT triangles?
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.
It is dumb because it isn't easily tested. All it is saying is "If RE is true, then this is true." Actual evidence is "If this is true, RE is true."
.. Unless you have a method by which we can test this.
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).
I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
Where has "RE science" claimed it works scaled down?
Also, the moment you bend the paper, you lose the triangle.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html)
No constraint is made forcing the side of the triangle to equal the radius of curvature.
As to your second question: Try it. With paper. Put the triangle on a baseball, or beach ball, or your head! It works just fine.
and which part of this specifies RIGHT triangles?
Oh dear, were we talking only about right triangles? Then I have erred. My general point is the same, however, the triangle excess (from RE point of view) exists despite the TYPE of triangle. Surely after visiting the website you concur?
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.
It is dumb because it isn't easily tested. All it is saying is "If RE is true, then this is true." Actual evidence is "If this is true, RE is true."
.. Unless you have a method by which we can test this.
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).
I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
Where has "RE science" claimed it works scaled down?
Also, the moment you bend the paper, you lose the triangle.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html)
No constraint is made forcing the side of the triangle to equal the radius of curvature.
As to your second question: Try it. With paper. Put the triangle on a baseball, or beach ball, or your head! It works just fine.
and which part of this specifies RIGHT triangles?
Oh dear, were we talking only about right triangles? Then I have erred. My general point is the same, however, the triangle excess (from RE point of view) exists despite the TYPE of triangle. Surely after visiting the website you concur?
Of course. Spherical-Triangle excess was my suggestion for alternative experiment all along.
-
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.
It is dumb because it isn't easily tested. All it is saying is "If RE is true, then this is true." Actual evidence is "If this is true, RE is true."
.. Unless you have a method by which we can test this.
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.
That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).
I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
Where has "RE science" claimed it works scaled down?
Also, the moment you bend the paper, you lose the triangle.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html)
No constraint is made forcing the side of the triangle to equal the radius of curvature.
As to your second question: Try it. With paper. Put the triangle on a baseball, or beach ball, or your head! It works just fine.
and which part of this specifies RIGHT triangles?
Oh dear, were we talking only about right triangles? Then I have erred. My general point is the same, however, the triangle excess (from RE point of view) exists despite the TYPE of triangle. Surely after visiting the website you concur?
Of course. Spherical-Triangle excess was my suggestion for alternative experiment all along.
Right, so I am interested in a modern experiment showing evidence for spherical excess.
-
Seems I was beaten to a citation, sorry about that. I can't give you a modern experiment, since again, traveling a hundred miles in a perfectly straight line multiple times is too inconvenient for anyone to do only to confirm what's already regarded as fact. That's part of the issue of this thread. I can tell you that this is rather well recorded in road planning, though not apparently considered a large enough issue to have extensive databases on the subject.
If you'd like to perform the experiment and give your results, I'd be happy to help give a setup. The same offer goes out to anyone who'd like to perform the experiment. I can't for the foreseeable future, for the same reason it took so long to get on today, my car is on it's last legs. If you don't, I'll likely give it a shot when I get a car that works reliably for more than three miles at a time.
-
Seems I was beaten to a citation, sorry about that. I can't give you a modern experiment, since again, traveling a hundred miles in a perfectly straight line multiple times is too inconvenient for anyone to do only to confirm what's already regarded as fact. That's part of the issue of this thread. I can tell you that this is rather well recorded in road planning, though not apparently considered a large enough issue to have extensive databases on the subject.
If you'd like to perform the experiment and give your results, I'd be happy to help give a setup. The same offer goes out to anyone who'd like to perform the experiment. I can't for the foreseeable future, for the same reason it took so long to get on today, my car is on it's last legs. If you don't, I'll likely give it a shot when I get a car that works reliably for more than three miles at a time.
Oh dear! Car problems suck. I drive with a cracked windshield and missing motor mount. We'll see which one of us crashes first!
My question I guess is: would there be differences in navigation if the Earth was flat versus round? In other words, would tracking the positions and trajectories for planes and boats work equally well on a round Earth if the pilots has trajectories assuming the Earth was curved? And vice-versa? Would they still arrive at the intended location if they assumed the opposite shape for the Earth and has maps for the wrong shape?
I've been thinking about this recently, because all trajectories are for a round earth. So we FE'ers should be able to show that it does not matter. Otherwise, your plane would land in the wrong place!
-
Seems I was beaten to a citation, sorry about that. I can't give you a modern experiment, since again, traveling a hundred miles in a perfectly straight line multiple times is too inconvenient for anyone to do only to confirm what's already regarded as fact. That's part of the issue of this thread. I can tell you that this is rather well recorded in road planning, though not apparently considered a large enough issue to have extensive databases on the subject.
If you'd like to perform the experiment and give your results, I'd be happy to help give a setup. The same offer goes out to anyone who'd like to perform the experiment. I can't for the foreseeable future, for the same reason it took so long to get on today, my car is on it's last legs. If you don't, I'll likely give it a shot when I get a car that works reliably for more than three miles at a time.
Oh dear! Car problems suck. I drive with a cracked windshield and missing motor mount. We'll see which one of us crashes first!
My question I guess is: would there be differences in navigation if the Earth was flat versus round? In other words, would tracking the positions and trajectories for planes and boats work equally well on a round Earth if the pilots has trajectories assuming the Earth was curved? And vice-versa? Would they still arrive at the intended location if they assumed the opposite shape for the Earth and has maps for the wrong shape?
I've been thinking about this recently, because all trajectories are for a round earth. So we FE'ers should be able to show that it does not matter. Otherwise, your plane would land in the wrong place!
Indeed they do, and they're expensive too. My trans and engine are both getting ready to buy the farm, so less crashing with more fuel-guzzling and stalling every red light. Still ought to be interesting to see whose lasts the longest.
To the topic, yes, this has been an issue raised several times in the past. For instance, try this topic on for size.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54792.0.html#.Uke19YbrwZw (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54792.0.html#.Uke19YbrwZw)
To sum up the most general responses, airlines often take a ludicrously incorrect path without realizing it, they do realize it and it's a conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth and make lots of money somehow, or that no real flat Earth map has been given so any discrepancies caused by distortions on the current map don't count against flat Earth models. Or as in the example thread, some amount of faked technical jargon with no backing whatsoever.