The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Tom on May 28, 2015, 05:08:31 AM
-
Please respond to this thread if you know the formula for the next measurement:
If I measure from the beach a ship at sea from the front to the back and it is 10 cm long for me and I know the ship is 100 meters long, what then is the distance between me and the ship?
-
Please respond to this thread if you know the formula for the next measurement:
If I measure from the beach a ship at sea from the front to the back and it is 10 cm long for me and I know the ship is 100 meters long, what then is the distance between me and the ship?
It's 100m/0.1m = 1000 times as far from your eye as the ruler. This assumes the ship is broadside to you.
-
Please respond to this thread if you know the formula for the next measurement:
If I measure from the beach a ship at sea from the front to the back and it is 10 cm long for me and I know the ship is 100 meters long, what then is the distance between me and the ship?
It's 100m/0.1m = 1000 times as far from your eye as the ruler. This assumes the ship is broadside to you.
Thank you!
Could you please explain '1000 times as far from your eye as the ruler'.
-
The ruler you are measuring is a certain distance from your eye. The ship would be 1000 times further than that.
-
The ruler you are measuring is a certain distance from your eye. The ship would be 1000 times further than that.
In cm, I presume.
Does the formula have a name?
-
The ruler you are measuring is a certain distance from your eye. The ship would be 1000 times further than that.
In cm, I presume.
Does the formula have a name?
Could be feet, inches, miles, what ever distance you want. It is just a multiplier.
It is not really a formula, just the properties of triangles and how their sides and measurements change as they get larger yet the angles all remain the same.
I would look up Pythagorean's Theorem and other triangle geometry to try and understand how this would work.
-
The ruler you are measuring is a certain distance from your eye. The ship would be 1000 times further than that.
In cm, I presume.
Does the formula have a name?
Could be feet, inches, miles, what ever distance you want. It is just a multiplier.
It is not really a formula, just the properties of triangles and how their sides and measurements change as they get larger yet the angles all remain the same.
I would look up Pythagorean's Theorem and other triangle geometry to try and understand how this would work.
I know that one. :)
If I have two rules. One from my eye to the object far away (same altitude) = 5 cm
At 5 cm I place the second ruler and it turns out the ship is 10 cm long.
The ship is actually 100 meter long.
Is it correct to say that the distance will be: 100m/0.1m = 1000 x 5 cm = 5 kilometer?
-
The ruler you are measuring is a certain distance from your eye. The ship would be 1000 times further than that.
In cm, I presume.
Does the formula have a name?
Could be feet, inches, miles, what ever distance you want. It is just a multiplier.
It is not really a formula, just the properties of triangles and how their sides and measurements change as they get larger yet the angles all remain the same.
I would look up Pythagorean's Theorem and other triangle geometry to try and understand how this would work.
I know that one. :)
If I have two rules. One from my eye to the object far away (same altitude) = 5 cm
At 5 cm I place the second ruler and it turns out the ship is 10 cm long.
The ship is actually 100 meter long.
Is it correct to say that the distance will be: 100m/0.1m = 1000 x 5 cm = 5 kilometer?
No, the distance would be 1000 x 5 cm = 5000 cm = 50 m.
-
The ruler you are measuring is a certain distance from your eye. The ship would be 1000 times further than that.
In cm, I presume.
Does the formula have a name?
Could be feet, inches, miles, what ever distance you want. It is just a multiplier.
It is not really a formula, just the properties of triangles and how their sides and measurements change as they get larger yet the angles all remain the same.
I would look up Pythagorean's Theorem and other triangle geometry to try and understand how this would work.
I know that one. :)
If I have two rules. One from my eye to the object far away (same altitude) = 5 cm
At 5 cm I place the second ruler and it turns out the ship is 10 cm long.
The ship is actually 100 meter long.
Is it correct to say that the distance will be: 100m/0.1m = 1000 x 5 cm = 5 kilometer?
No, the distance would be 1000 x 5 cm = 5000 cm = 50 m.
That can't be correct. The ship is far away and 100 meter long. So what's wrong here?
If I have two rules. I stand on my feet. One ruler from my eye to the object far away (same altitude) = 10 cm
At 10 cm I place the second ruler and it turns out the ship is 10 cm long.
The ship is actually 100 meter long.
What will be the distance between me and the ship?
-
What will be the distance between me and the ship?
Definitely 50m. If you want a more rigorous way, just use trig.
You have a triangle, made by the ruler and your eye, with opposite side length 10cm, and adjacent side length 5cm. That gives an angle of just over 60 degrees (using tan).
Using that same angle, and a triangle with opposite side length 100m, or 10000cm, applying tan gives you an adjacent side length 5000cm, or 50m, exactly.
The ship isn't that far away: you're holding the ruler very close to your eye. Hold the ruler a more realistic distance away, you may get a more realistic answer.
-
What will be the distance between me and the ship?
Definitely 50m. If you want a more rigorous way, just use trig.
You have a triangle, made by the ruler and your eye, with opposite side length 10cm, and adjacent side length 5cm. That gives an angle of just over 60 degrees (using tan).
Using that same angle, and a triangle with opposite side length 100m, or 10000cm, applying tan gives you an adjacent side length 5000cm, or 50m, exactly.
The ship isn't that far away: you're holding the ruler very close to your eye. Hold the ruler a more realistic distance away, you may get a more realistic answer.
Impossible. How can a 100 meter long ship I see as 10 cm be so close? There is something wrong with the formula.
-
The ruler you are measuring is a certain distance from your eye. The ship would be 1000 times further than that.
In cm, I presume.
Does the formula have a name?
Could be feet, inches, miles, what ever distance you want. It is just a multiplier.
It is not really a formula, just the properties of triangles and how their sides and measurements change as they get larger yet the angles all remain the same.
I would look up Pythagorean's Theorem and other triangle geometry to try and understand how this would work.
I know that one. :)
If I have two rules. One from my eye to the object far away (same altitude) = 5 cm
At 5 cm I place the second ruler and it turns out the ship is 10 cm long.
The ship is actually 100 meter long.
Is it correct to say that the distance will be: 100m/0.1m = 1000 x 5 cm = 5 kilometer?
No, the distance would be 1000 x 5 cm = 5000 cm = 50 m.
That can't be correct.
Why not?
The ship is far away and 100 meter long. So what's wrong here?
Define "far away". Nothing is wrong. Well, your eye can't focus on something as close as 5 cm, so there's that.
If I have two rules. I stand on my feet. One ruler from my eye to the object far away (same altitude) = 10 cm
At 10 cm I place the second ruler and it turns out the ship is 10 cm long.
The ship is actually 100 meter long.
What will be the distance between me and the ship?
Since it's a linear relationship and you doubled the distance to your 10-cm ruler compared to the earlier example, care to take a wild guess?
What will be the distance between me and the ship?
Definitely 50m. If you want a more rigorous way, just use trig.
You have a triangle, made by the ruler and your eye, with opposite side length 10cm, and adjacent side length 5cm. That gives an angle of just over 60 degrees (using tan).
Using that same angle, and a triangle with opposite side length 100m, or 10000cm, applying tan gives you an adjacent side length 5000cm, or 50m, exactly.
The ship isn't that far away: you're holding the ruler very close to your eye. Hold the ruler a more realistic distance away, you may get a more realistic answer.
Impossible.
Not at all.
-
Impossible. How can a 100 meter long ship I see as 10 cm be so close? There is something wrong with the formula.
Because your 10-cm ruler is 1000 times closer. Nothing wrong with the formula, but holding a ruler as close as 5 or 10 cm from your eye will make it a blur, so it will be hard to read.
-
Impossible. How can a 100 meter long ship I see as 10 cm be so close? There is something wrong with the formula.
Congratulations, you've just defeated one of the most basic foundations of geometric mathematics. Would you care to share what, specifically, your problem with trigometry is?
10cm is pretty long, in comparison to how such things usually look, and 5cm is very close to your eye giving a result you're unlikely to be able to visualize. Pick more realistic measurements, and you'll find the result should be easier to imagine. Plus, 50m is a pretty long distance: half the length of the ship.
For example, a 5cm long ship (which is really 100m) from a ruler 10cm away would give a distance of 200m away. Better?
-
I just tried this with a ruler. 10cm, at 5cm from my eyes, almost fills my entire field of view. The ship cannot be far away.
-
Impossible. How can a 100 meter long ship I see as 10 cm be so close? There is something wrong with the formula.
Because your 10-cm ruler is 1000 times closer. Nothing wrong with the formula, but holding a ruler as close as 5 or 10 cm from your eye will make it a blur, so it will be hard to read.
Even if it is 50 cm, your formula gives a distance of 500 meter?
Wrong formula.
-
Wrong formula.
How about you test the formula rather than just saying it's not true for no reason?
-
Impossible. How can a 100 meter long ship I see as 10 cm be so close? There is something wrong with the formula.
Because your 10-cm ruler is 1000 times closer. Nothing wrong with the formula, but holding a ruler as close as 5 or 10 cm from your eye will make it a blur, so it will be hard to read.
Even if it is 50 cm, your formula gives a distance of 500 meter?
Wrong formula.
So do you have anything more than incredulity? Please state what is wrong with the figures other than "IMPOSSIBLE!!!"
-
Wrong formula.
How about you test the formula rather than just saying it's not true for no reason?
The reason is that a 100 meter long ship that I see as 10 cm standing on the beach is at least 5 kilometer far way.
-
Wrong formula.
How about you test the formula rather than just saying it's not true for no reason?
The reason is that a 100 meter long ship that I see as 10 cm standing on the beach is at least 5 kilometer far way.
And how do you figure this out? How do you know the ship is 100 meters long? How do you know it is 5 kilometers away? The only known that you know for sure is that you see it as 10cm against a ruler.
-
The reason is that a 100 meter long ship that I see as 10 cm standing on the beach is at least 5 kilometer far way.
Do you know how far a kilometer is? That's simply not true.
Have you actually tried that, or are you just guessing and hoping?
Seriously: at least test the formula on a small scale. If your only argument against a fundamental and well-known tenet of maths is incredulity, then you don't have a leg to stand on.
-
Wrong formula.
How about you test the formula rather than just saying it's not true for no reason?
The reason is that a 100 meter long ship that I see as 10 cm standing on the beach is at least 5 kilometer far way.
And how do you figure this out? How do you know the ship is 100 meters long? How do you know it is 5 kilometers away? The only known that you know for sure is that you see it as 10cm against a ruler.
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
I want to know the exact distance.
-
Geometry is a lie an hoax.
-
What do you mean by "I see as 10cm"? It's meaningless.
-
The reason is that a 100 meter long ship that I see as 10 cm standing on the beach is at least 5 kilometer far way.
Do you know how far a kilometer is? That's simply not true.
Have you actually tried that, or are you just guessing and hoping?
Seriously: at least test the formula on a small scale. If your only argument against a fundamental and well-known tenet of maths is incredulity, then you don't have a leg to stand on.
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
I want to know the exact distance.
-
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
I want to know the exact distance.
You've been told it, assuming your measurement of how far from your eye the ruler is, is accurate.
Geometry is a lie an hoax.
Why?
-
What do you mean by "I see as 10cm"? It's meaningless.
Have you ever looked at a ship sailing far away from a beach?
It looks smaller than it really is. So again,
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
I want to know the exact distance.
-
What do you mean by "I see as 10cm"? It's meaningless.
Have you ever looked at a ship sailing far away from a beach?
It looks smaller than it really is. So again,
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
I want to know the exact distance.
But how can you see something as 10cm? We see in 3D, it depends how far from your eyes you hold the ruler!
-
What do you mean by "I see as 10cm"? It's meaningless.
Have you ever looked at a ship sailing far away from a beach?
It looks smaller than it really is. So again,
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
I want to know the exact distance.
But how can you see something as 10cm? We see in 3D, it depends how far from your eyes you hold the ruler!
omg
-
What do you mean by "I see as 10cm"? It's meaningless.
Have you ever looked at a ship sailing far away from a beach?
It looks smaller than it really is. So again,
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
OK two knowns. You need a third. How far away are you holding the ruler?
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
OK, then I guess you must be holding the ruler about 5 meters away from you, you either have very long arms or someone else is holding it for you.
I want to know the exact distance.
We told you how to do that. You are still missing one more unknown in order to figure it out. How far are you holding the ruler from yourself?
-
What do you mean by "I see as 10cm"? It's meaningless.
Have you ever looked at a ship sailing far away from a beach?
It looks smaller than it really is. So again,
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
OK two knowns. You need a third. How far away are you holding the ruler?
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
OK, then I guess you must be holding the ruler about 5 meters away from you, you either have very long arms or someone else is holding it for you.
I want to know the exact distance.
We told you how to do that. You are still missing one more unknown in order to figure it out. How far are you holding the ruler from yourself?
It's complete nonsense. Have ever been on a beach looking at ship far away?
It looks small and it's not 5 meters above your head.
-
Tom your corect in that formulate is total nonsence. You would get more sence of it from this guy, then you would ever from theses tripe peddlers.
& he would provide you none.
At Home with Ashley Boomington: (http://)
-
Tom your corect in that formulate is total nonsence. You would get more sence of it from this guy, then you would ever from theses tripe peddlers.
& he would provide you none.
At Home with Ashley Boomington: (http://)
:D
-
Rule of thumb estimate is 10x100 m=1,000m 10x1000 m=10,000m estimated answer ship is 10km .
-
What do you mean by "I see as 10cm"? It's meaningless.
Have you ever looked at a ship sailing far away from a beach?
It looks smaller than it really is. So again,
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
OK two knowns. You need a third. How far away are you holding the ruler?
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
OK, then I guess you must be holding the ruler about 5 meters away from you, you either have very long arms or someone else is holding it for you.
I want to know the exact distance.
We told you how to do that. You are still missing one more unknown in order to figure it out. How far are you holding the ruler from yourself?
It's complete nonsense. Have ever been on a beach looking at ship far away?
Yes, yes I have. But that is neither here nor there in your understanding of basic math.
It looks small and it's not 5 meters above your head.
Would you care to re-read my post before declaring it complete nonsense? Also, point out where I said the ship was 5 meters above your head. If this is any indication of how well you comprehend things, I can see why you are not understanding the math behind this simple exercise.
-
What do you mean by "I see as 10cm"? It's meaningless.
Have you ever looked at a ship sailing far away from a beach?
It looks smaller than it really is. So again,
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
OK two knowns. You need a third. How far away are you holding the ruler?
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
OK, then I guess you must be holding the ruler about 5 meters away from you, you either have very long arms or someone else is holding it for you.
I want to know the exact distance.
We told you how to do that. You are still missing one more unknown in order to figure it out. How far are you holding the ruler from yourself?
It's complete nonsense. Have ever been on a beach looking at ship far away?
Yes, yes I have. But that is neither here nor there in your understanding of basic math.
It looks small and it's not 5 meters above your head.
Would you care to re-read my post before declaring it complete nonsense? Also, point out where I said the ship was 5 meters above your head. If this is any indication of how well you comprehend things, I can see why you are not understanding the math behind this simple exercise.
Please look at this picture: http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-man-looking-out-to-sea-image12647457 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-man-looking-out-to-sea-image12647457)
The person looking at the ship on eye level. He sees the ship as ... cm. Where is the ruler?
-
He has none. ::)
However, that picture is irrelevant. You are the one that is arguing from incredulity. You are the one that said you measured a 100m ship with a ruler and it only measured 10cm across. You have not said how far the ruler was away from you. You have just asserted that you guessed the ship had to be 5km away from you.
According to geometry, I have stated that the ruler must have been about 5 meters from you. That is all there is.
Your inability to understand a concept does not prove the concept to be false.
-
He has none. ::)
However, that picture is irrelevant. You are the one that is arguing from incredulity. You are the one that said you measured a 100m ship with a ruler and it only measured 10cm across. You have not said how far the ruler was away from you. You have just asserted that you guessed the ship had to be 5km away from you.
According to geometry, I have stated that the ruler must have been about 5 meters from you. That is all there is.
Your inability to understand a concept does not prove the concept to be false.
You can see with your thumb and a finger how long the ship is from where you are. That's your ruler and it's not 5 meters away from you.
Your formula does not work for this problem.
-
What do you mean by "I see as 10cm"? It's meaningless.
Have you ever looked at a ship sailing far away from a beach?
It looks smaller than it really is. So again,
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
OK two knowns. You need a third. How far away are you holding the ruler?
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
OK, then I guess you must be holding the ruler about 5 meters away from you, you either have very long arms or someone else is holding it for you.
I want to know the exact distance.
We told you how to do that. You are still missing one more unknown in order to figure it out. How far are you holding the ruler from yourself?
It's complete nonsense. Have ever been on a beach looking at ship far away?
Yes, yes I have. But that is neither here nor there in your understanding of basic math.
It looks small and it's not 5 meters above your head.
Would you care to re-read my post before declaring it complete nonsense? Also, point out where I said the ship was 5 meters above your head. If this is any indication of how well you comprehend things, I can see why you are not understanding the math behind this simple exercise.
I know shit talk when I read it. You see i'v used that methord to estamate ruff distance from the cattle stations . Its not spot on but its there abouts.
You jokers leave the second multiply out , because it shows up your curviture to be a total nonsene .
-
What do you mean by "I see as 10cm"? It's meaningless.
Have you ever looked at a ship sailing far away from a beach?
It looks smaller than it really is. So again,
I know the ship is 100 meter long.
I know I see it as 10 cm long from the beach.
OK two knowns. You need a third. How far away are you holding the ruler?
I guess the ship is 5 kilometers far away, but I am not sure about it.
OK, then I guess you must be holding the ruler about 5 meters away from you, you either have very long arms or someone else is holding it for you.
I want to know the exact distance.
We told you how to do that. You are still missing one more unknown in order to figure it out. How far are you holding the ruler from yourself?
It's complete nonsense. Have ever been on a beach looking at ship far away?
Yes, yes I have. But that is neither here nor there in your understanding of basic math.
It looks small and it's not 5 meters above your head.
Would you care to re-read my post before declaring it complete nonsense? Also, point out where I said the ship was 5 meters above your head. If this is any indication of how well you comprehend things, I can see why you are not understanding the math behind this simple exercise.
I know shit talk when I read it. You see i'v used that methord to estamate ruff distance from the cattle stations . Its not spot on but its there abouts.
You jokers leave the second multiply out , because it shows up your curviture to be a total nonsene .
What is the correct formula or table for this problem?
When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller.
You could calculate this with a formula, I presume.
-
It's trigonometry for gods sake.
Here's a good link if you need to learn it.
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/trigonometry/basic-trigonometry (https://www.khanacademy.org/math/trigonometry/basic-trigonometry)
-
Tom, you claimed to be an economics graduate. Yet you can't even grasp the most basic of maths.
I call bullshit.
-
Tom, you claimed to be an economics graduate. Yet you can't even grasp the most basic of maths.
I call bullshit.
Why then did not anyone give a proper formula?
Here is a challenge for you to prove that you know something.
And remember, the person who is standing on the beach can measure the length of the ship using his thumb and finger, 20 cm from his eyes.
And there is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you can't see it anymore.
-
Tom, at nowhere in this thread anyone has claimed you can no longer see the ship with your eyes. You comprehension skills are severely lacking. Its no wonder why you cannot comprehend what is actually going on.
-
Why then did not anyone give a proper formula?
We've given methods. Plus it's not too easy to write maths in a forum post.
If o is the length of the ship according to the ruler, O the length in reality, a the distance of the ruler from your eye, and A the distance of the ship, the formula would be:
A = O/tan(tan-1(o/a))
Which can clearly be simplified to:
A = Oa/o
Until you have found a ship that you know has length 100m, and measured a distance of 5km from it, and looked at it with a ruler from 5cm from your eye (absurdly close), and found it looks like 10cm, you simply have no grounds for your incredulity. I very much doubt you've even attempted this in real life, but if you have the numbers you've given us are simply wrong.
You can even test this formula on a small scale, without leaving your room.
You've been answered. Until you have a real life example rather than a made up situation which you're clearly struggling to visualize, don't act like you haven't been.
-
Tom, at nowhere in this thread anyone has claimed you can no longer see the ship with your eyes. You comprehension skills are severely lacking. Its no wonder why you cannot comprehend what is actually going on.
Look at the diagram and your formula if you can. It is based on the argument that somewhere else on the beach you see a different size of the ship. That's not possible on the small beach.
-
Tom, at nowhere in this thread anyone has claimed you can no longer see the ship with your eyes. You comprehension skills are severely lacking. Its no wonder why you cannot comprehend what is actually going on.
Look at the diagram and your formula if you can. It is based on the argument that somewhere else on the beach you see a different size of the ship. That's not possible on the small beach.
I think I can call it, with all the evidence so far, you are just trolling. Not a bad effort, the passive agressive act was good, and the terminal stupidity somewhat endearing if frustrating.
Tom == Troll
-
Tom, at nowhere in this thread anyone has claimed you can no longer see the ship with your eyes. You comprehension skills are severely lacking. Its no wonder why you cannot comprehend what is actually going on.
Look at the diagram and your formula if you can. It is based on the argument that somewhere else on the beach you see a different size of the ship. That's not possible on the small beach.
I think I can call it, with all the evidence so far, you are just trolling. Not a bad effort, the passive agressive act was good, and the terminal stupidity somewhat endearing if frustrating.
Tom == Troll
The formula everyone is giving does not apply for this problem. Most are just theorists, completely out of step with reality.
-
The formula everyone is giving does not apply for this problem. As you said, most are just theorists, completely out of step with reality.
If you're going to disprove trigonometry, you're going to need more than that.
So, why does it not apply to this problem? It may just be the numbers you've provided are wrong, (5cm remains stupidly close).
-
Why then did not anyone give a proper formula?
We've given methods. Plus it's not too easy to write maths in a forum post.
If o is the length of the ship according to the ruler, O the length in reality, a the distance of the ruler from your eye, and A the distance of the ship, the formula would be:
A = O/tan(tan-1(o/a))
Which can clearly be simplified to:
A = Oa/o
Until you have found a ship that you know has length 100m, and measured a distance of 5km from it, and looked at it with a ruler from 5cm from your eye (absurdly close), and found it looks like 10cm, you simply have no grounds for your incredulity. I very much doubt you've even attempted this in real life, but if you have the numbers you've given us are simply wrong.
You can even test this formula on a small scale, without leaving your room.
You've been answered. Until you have a real life example rather than a made up situation which you're clearly struggling to visualize, don't act like you haven't been.
I am talking about a real event.
When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.
Again,
You are standing on the position where you see the ship as 10 cm, using your thumb and finger just before your eyes.
The ship is 100 meters long.
There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size on a different position. It's a small beach.
So, again your formula does not apply here. It's not that hard to understand.
-
I am talking about a real event.
Then your measurements are wrong.
When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.
When has anyone even so much as hinted otherwise?
There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size. It's a small beach.
Well you will see it as a different size, by your own admission. Whe has anyone ever said you wouldn't see it any more?
I mean, it's fine if you want to troll, most people here do, but you need to come up with something better than that.
-
Mathematics is a hoax a lie nothing to do in reality.
-
I am talking about a real event.
Then your measurements are wrong.
When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.
When has anyone even so much as hinted otherwise?
There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size. It's a small beach.
Well you will see it as a different size, by your own admission. Whe has anyone ever said you wouldn't see it any more?
I mean, it's fine if you want to troll, most people here do, but you need to come up with something better than that.
omg, what kind of forum is this?
No one answering up to now does understand this simple question about the size of an object and its distance when you cannot move to a new position.
The calculation has been done before, calculating with different positions, so the formula should be known already.
Anyone reading this and understanding????
-
Tom, you claimed to be an economics graduate. Yet you can't even grasp the most basic of maths.
I call bullshit.
Why then did not anyone give a proper formula?
Here is a challenge for you to prove that you know something.
And remember, the person who is standing on the beach can measure the length of the ship using his thumb and finger, 20 cm from his eyes.
And there is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you can't see it anymore.
Tom- there's no formula. It's a concept know as trigonometry, everyone is supposed to learn it in 9th grade. You can't just plug in numbers, you have to actually understand it first. You should click the link I provided, and learn trigonometry like the rest of the world.
-
Tom, you claimed to be an economics graduate. Yet you can't even grasp the most basic of maths.
I call bullshit.
Why then did not anyone give a proper formula?
Here is a challenge for you to prove that you know something.
And remember, the person who is standing on the beach can measure the length of the ship using his thumb and finger, 20 cm from his eyes.
And there is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you can't see it anymore.
Tom- there's no formula. It's a concept know as trigonometry, everyone is supposed to learn it in 9th grade. You can't just plug in numbers, you have to actually understand it first. You should click the link I provided, and learn trigonometry like the rest of the world.
you liar big big big liar.
-
Anyone reading this and understanding????
I understand you perfectly, maybe better than you think. Did you work out the height of the tree yet?
-
I am talking about a real event.
Then your measurements are wrong.
When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.
When has anyone even so much as hinted otherwise?
There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size. It's a small beach.
Well you will see it as a different size, by your own admission. Whe has anyone ever said you wouldn't see it any more?
I mean, it's fine if you want to troll, most people here do, but you need to come up with something better than that.
omg, what kind of forum is this?
No one answering up to now does understand this simple question about the size of an object and its distance when you cannot move to a new position.
The calculation has been done before, calculating with different positions, so the formula should be known already.
Anyone reading this and understanding????
You wont get answers out of theses lying bastards. I'm still waiting for one on inertia , air flight times & fuel.
-
I am talking about a real event.
Then your measurements are wrong.
When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.
When has anyone even so much as hinted otherwise?
There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size. It's a small beach.
Well you will see it as a different size, by your own admission. Whe has anyone ever said you wouldn't see it any more?
I mean, it's fine if you want to troll, most people here do, but you need to come up with something better than that.
omg, what kind of forum is this?
No one answering up to now does understand this simple question about the size of an object and its distance when you cannot move to a new position.
The calculation has been done before, calculating with different positions, so the formula should be known already.
Anyone reading this and understanding????
You wont get answers out of theses bastards. I'm still waiting for one on inertia , air flight times & fuel.
So, no one on this forum understands what I am talking about?
-
Anyone reading this and understanding????
I understand you perfectly, maybe better than you think. Did you work out the height of the tree yet?
Then, tell me how to measure UR DUM (30 meters in your example) on a small beach and a ship at sea.
-
So, no one on this forum understands what I am talking about?
Everyone on the forum understands perfectly, the only one who doesn't is yourself, my conclusion is that you are just deliberately playing dumb.
-
So, no one on this forum understands what I am talking about?
Everyone on the forum understands perfectly, the only one who doesn't is yourself, my conclusion is that you are just deliberately playing dumb.
Prove it!
Please tell me how you measure the UR + DUM (3 + 27 meters = 30 meters) standing on the small beach looking at the ship on sea.
You cannot measure the angle between the front and the back of the ship from where you stand. It is too small.
Back to the question
What is the formula to measure the distance, filling in the data you know, the 10 cm size you see and the 100 meters (length) of the ship? If you need another datum (measurement) what is it and how do you get it?
-
What is the formula to measure the distance, filling in the data you know, the 10 cm size you see and the 100 meters of the ship. If you need another datum (measurement) how do you get it?
The distance from your eye to whatever you're using to measure. You've been told this before. There are plenty of ways to get it: ruler, finger-measurement...
And I gave you a formula earlier (which does apply because none of the reasons you claimed it wouldn't are remotely true).
-
What is the formula to measure the distance, filling in the data you know, the 10 cm size you see and the 100 meters of the ship. If you need another datum (measurement) how do you get it?
The distance from your eye to whatever you're using to measure. You've been told this before. There are plenty of ways to get it: ruler, finger-measurement...
And I gave you a formula earlier (which does apply because none of the reasons you claimed it wouldn't are remotely true).
Your formula is not correct. The result cannot be true. Think!!!!
Ok, the length of the ship is 10 cm using thumb and finger arm length.
You know that the ship actually is 100 meters long. You can see it is far away, right? About 5 km or more.
So, what is the formula / table with these variables in order to get the distance between you and the ship. The answer must be 5 km or more, right?
-
What is the formula to measure the distance, filling in the data you know, the 10 cm size you see and the 100 meters of the ship. If you need another datum (measurement) how do you get it?
The distance from your eye to whatever you're using to measure. You've been told this before. There are plenty of ways to get it: ruler, finger-measurement...
And I gave you a formula earlier (which does apply because none of the reasons you claimed it wouldn't are remotely true).
Your formula is not correct. The result cannot be true. Think!!!!
Ok, the length of the ship is 10 cm using thumb and finger arm length.
You know that the ship actually is 100 meters long. You can see it is far away, right? About 5 km or more.
So, what is the formula / table with these variables in order to get the distance between you and the ship. The answer must be 5 km or more, right?
Apparent length = 10 cm at arm's length (call it 50 cm).
Actual length = 100 m.
Distance = 5 km.
Pick any two. Calculate the actual value for the third. Easy.
Aren't you glad you created that redundant thread? Now we can point out your error in two places.
-
You cannot measure the angle between the front and the back of the ship from where you stand. It is too small.
Yeah you can, using any two sides you know of the triangle formed from your eye to the object you can measure any angle size, even one as tiny as .000000000001o.
there are proofs, but the "formula" you need for it is sine, cosine and tangent.
-
Your formula is not correct. The result cannot be true. Think!!!!
Are you going to share why the result isn't true, or are you going for an argument from exclamation marks?
Incredulity is not an argument. Why, specifically, does my method not work?
Ok, the length of the ship is 10 cm using thumb and finger arm length.
You know that the ship actually is 100 meters long. You can see it is far away, right? About 5 km or more.
Do you know how far 5km is?! I've seen a running track that was 100m long, it looks a lot smaller from just 50m away. Test it yourself; you have to know where a running track is. I can promise you, you don't need to be anywhere near 5km away.
-
Your formula is not correct. The result cannot be true. Think!!!!
Are you going to share why the result isn't true, or are you going for an argument from exclamation marks?
Incredulity is not an argument. Why, specifically, does my method not work?
Ok, the length of the ship is 10 cm using thumb and finger arm length.
You know that the ship actually is 100 meters long. You can see it is far away, right? About 5 km or more.
Do you know how far 5km is?! I've seen a running track that was 100m long, it looks a lot smaller from just 50m away. Test it yourself; you have to know where a running track is. I can promise you, you don't need to be anywhere near 5km away.
Maybe the 10 cm is not right. Probably it should be something like 2 cm
-
Your formula is not correct. The result cannot be true. Think!!!!
Are you going to share why the result isn't true, or are you going for an argument from exclamation marks?
Incredulity is not an argument. Why, specifically, does my method not work?
Ok, the length of the ship is 10 cm using thumb and finger arm length.
You know that the ship actually is 100 meters long. You can see it is far away, right? About 5 km or more.
Do you know how far 5km is?! I've seen a running track that was 100m long, it looks a lot smaller from just 50m away. Test it yourself; you have to know where a running track is. I can promise you, you don't need to be anywhere near 5km away.
Maybe the 10 cm is not right. Probably it should be something like 2 cm
Are you actually measuring anything?
-
Maybe the 10 cm is not right. Probably it should be something like 2 cm
1. How on earth did you mistake the two?!
2. Shrinking by a fifth would give you a very different answer. Assuming 5cm from your face again, in lieu of any new measurement that I've seen, the same process gives a distance of 250m. Bearing in mind, that is still holding the ruler/having your hand absurdly close to your face. Go for a more realistic 10cm away, you'd get 500m.
-
10 mm at arm's length would be reasonably close. What's a single order of magnitude among friends?
-
I am talking about a real event.
Then your measurements are wrong.
When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.
When has anyone even so much as hinted otherwise?
There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size. It's a small beach.
Well you will see it as a different size, by your own admission. Whe has anyone ever said you wouldn't see it any more?
I mean, it's fine if you want to troll, most people here do, but you need to come up with something better than that.
omg, what kind of forum is this?
No one answering up to now does understand this simple question about the size of an object and its distance when you cannot move to a new position.
The calculation has been done before, calculating with different positions, so the formula should be known already.
Anyone reading this and understanding????
You wont get answers out of theses bastards. I'm still waiting for one on inertia , air flight times & fuel.
So, no one on this forum understands what I am talking about?
I get what your saying . They get what your saying . Their just not going to understand it because it dosen't fit their spherical spinning dogmatic agenda. You have to realise anyhing that dosen't fit with their dogma Is attacked no mater how credible , failing that they just dont acknowledged it & flat out ignore it .
-
I am talking about a real event.
Then your measurements are wrong.
When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.
When has anyone even so much as hinted otherwise?
There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size. It's a small beach.
Well you will see it as a different size, by your own admission. Whe has anyone ever said you wouldn't see it any more?
I mean, it's fine if you want to troll, most people here do, but you need to come up with something better than that.
omg, what kind of forum is this?
No one answering up to now does understand this simple question about the size of an object and its distance when you cannot move to a new position.
The calculation has been done before, calculating with different positions, so the formula should be known already.
Anyone reading this and understanding????
You wont get answers out of theses bastards. I'm still waiting for one on inertia , air flight times & fuel.
So, no one on this forum understands what I am talking about?
I get what your saying . They get what your saying . Their just not going to understand it because it dosen't fit their spherical spinning dogmatic agenda. You have to realise anyhing that dosen't fit with their dogma Is attacked no mater how credible , failing that they just dont acknowledged it & ignore it .
I am not going to understand it, not because some dogmatic agenda, but because it doesn't work. No agenda there, unless not accepting obvious BS is an agenda.
-
I am talking about a real event.
Then your measurements are wrong.
When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.
When has anyone even so much as hinted otherwise?
There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size. It's a small beach.
Well you will see it as a different size, by your own admission. Whe has anyone ever said you wouldn't see it any more?
I mean, it's fine if you want to troll, most people here do, but you need to come up with something better than that.
omg, what kind of forum is this?
No one answering up to now does understand this simple question about the size of an object and its distance when you cannot move to a new position.
The calculation has been done before, calculating with different positions, so the formula should be known already.
Anyone reading this and understanding????
You wont get answers out of theses bastards. I'm still waiting for one on inertia , air flight times & fuel.
So, no one on this forum understands what I am talking about?
I get what your saying . They get what your saying . Their just not going to understand it because it dosen't fit their spherical spinning dogmatic agenda. You have to realise anyhing that dosen't fit with their dogma Is attacked no mater how credible , failing that they just dont acknowledged it & ignore it .
I am not going to understand it, not because some dogmatic agenda, but because it doesn't work. No agenda there, unless not accepting obvious BS is an agenda.
Prove its not bull shit. Dont just act like a pathetic little Marry Anne. You just have to step back & look at the bullshit codes & all the other made up laws you filthy lying bath scum have concocted. Just so it can suit your own agendas.
Anyone one questioning it , gets labeled antisocial & then set apon. I chose not to be part of your phucken community of elitist dog shit , not that you would be given that choice or right to begin with .when it comes to you leaches.
When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home, travling along this lonely road & the night sky she said your along time dead , why dont you pour drink & stay awhile & hope to wake the morning with a smile.
And she said it ain't a sin to throw cauition to the wind & long for happiness my friend.
When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home.
-
I have shown evidence for it not being BS. I have described ways that you can do, on your own, that shows it is not BS. Just because you don't understand the properties of triangles does not means that math is BS.
-
I have shown evidence for it not being BS. I have described ways that you can do, on your own, that shows it is not BS. Just because you don't understand the properties of triangles does not means that math is BS.
Dont just piss in my poket. Provide a diagram with your formulated maths.That supports the correct verified distance ,between a known 100m wide object apearring 10mm from a distance.
-
Prove its not bull shit. Dont just act like a pathetic little Marry Anne. You just have to step back & look at the bullshit codes & all the other made up laws you filthy lying bath scum have concocted. Just so it can suit your own agendas.
Yeah, sometimes I have that opinion about lawyers, too.
Careful, though. You forgot to put spaces before any of the periods there, and there aren't enough misspelled or misused words. You're not maintaining your "complete buffoon" brand, and "branding", as I'm sure you realize, is important. The incomplete sentence at the end is a nice try for a save, but not enough to maintain your usual low standards.
Anyone one questioning it , gets labeled antisocial & then set apon. I chose not to be part of your phucken community of elitist dog shit , not that you would be given that choice or right to begin with .when it comes to you leaches.
Can you work on making the superfluous spacing around your punctuation marks more consistent, even if it's consistently wrong? We train our eyes to scan your incoherent ravings, and this makes our job harder. Thanks!
When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home, travling along this lonely road & the night sky she said your along time dead , why dont pour drink & stay awhile & hope to wake the morning with a smile.
And she said it ain't a sin to throw cauition to the wind & long for happiness my friend.
When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home.
That's pretty nice.
I don't see how it relates to some nimrod holding thumb and finger 2" from his eye (or was it at arm's length? I've lost track) and declaring a 100-meter-long ship must be 5 km away, but it is nice.
-
I have shown evidence for it not being BS. I have described ways that you can do, on your own, that shows it is not BS. Just because you don't understand the properties of triangles does not means that math is BS.
Dont just piss in my poket. Provide a diagram with your formulated maths.That supports the correct verified distance ,between a known 100m wide object apearring 10mm from a distance.
There have been plenty of diagrams shown in this thread, and your inability to understand how math works does not make math total bollocks. It was also shown that in order to get the distance to a 100m wide object by comparing it to a 10cm object, you need to know the distance to the 10cm object. Something that Tom initially didn't mention, then said was at 5cm from him, then 20cm, or was it 10cm, maybe it was at arm's length. Either way, we still need to know that distance. Otherwise he is just saying that he thinks the 100m object is 5km away from him.
So now why don't you go and support your saide based on more than just your incredulity.
-
I have shown evidence for it not being BS. I have described ways that you can do, on your own, that shows it is not BS. Just because you don't understand the properties of triangles does not means that math is BS.
Dont just piss in my poket. Provide a diagram with your formulated maths.That supports the correct verified distance ,between a known 100m wide object apearring 10mm from a distance.
There have been plenty of diagrams shown in this thread, and your inability to understand how math works does not make math total bollocks. It was also shown that in order to get the distance to a 100m wide object by comparing it to a 10cm object, you need to know the distance to the 10cm object. Something that Tom initially didn't mention, then said was at 5cm from him, then 20cm, or was it 10cm, maybe it was at arm's length. Either way, we still need to know that distance. Otherwise he is just saying that he thinks the 100m object is 5km away from him.
So now why don't you go and support your saide based on more than just your incredulity.
lets assume its the 10mm lens of the eye its self . Whats the distance ?
-
Is it just my imagination or does it seem like there are multiple versions of Charles Bloomington, one minute he's a foul mouthed drooling idiot, unable to spell or put two words together in any way that makes sense, and the next he's literate, coherent and the spelling mistakes disappear. It's either two people, or the difference between the angry drunk and sober versions.
Charles, If it's diagrams that float your boat, there are plenty in the other parallel thread. If it's the angry drunk, please pass the message to the other Charles.
-
I have shown evidence for it not being BS. I have described ways that you can do, on your own, that shows it is not BS. Just because you don't understand the properties of triangles does not means that math is BS.
Dont just piss in my poket. Provide a diagram with your formulated maths.That supports the correct verified distance ,between a known 100m wide object apearring 10mm from a distance.
There have been plenty of diagrams shown in this thread, and your inability to understand how math works does not make math total bollocks. It was also shown that in order to get the distance to a 100m wide object by comparing it to a 10cm object, you need to know the distance to the 10cm object. Something that Tom initially didn't mention, then said was at 5cm from him, then 20cm, or was it 10cm, maybe it was at arm's length. Either way, we still need to know that distance. Otherwise he is just saying that he thinks the 100m object is 5km away from him.
So now why don't you go and support your saide based on more than just your incredulity.
lets assume its the 10mm lens of the eye its self . Whats the distance ?
Well, seeing as you cannot see the lense of your eye, you cannot compare the size of the lense of your eye to the ship in the distance. This is also not what was asked in the OP, where it states, quite clearly mind you, that the ship was 10cm across. It was later revealed, after much prodding, that this 10cm was actually measured with his thumb and finger.
Also, since the lense of your eye is actually part of your eye, you do not have a distance from your eye to measure to use to get the ratio of distances.
Please, if you cannot comprehend a discussion, go back and read posts before jumping in and claiming everything that has been presented is total BS.
-
Prove its not bull shit. Dont just act like a pathetic little Marry Anne. You just have to step back & look at the bullshit codes & all the other made up laws you filthy lying bath scum have concocted. Just so it can suit your own agendas.
Yeah, sometimes I have that opinion about lawyers, too.
Careful, though. You forgot to put spaces before any of the periods there, and there aren't enough misspelled or misused words. You're not maintaining your "complete buffoon" brand, and "branding", as I'm sure you realize, is important. The incomplete sentence at the end is a nice try for a save, but not enough to maintain your usual low standards.
Anyone one questioning it , gets labeled antisocial & then set apon. I chose not to be part of your phucken community of elitist dog shit , not that you would be given that choice or right to begin with .when it comes to you leaches.
Can you work on making the superfluous spacing around your punctuation marks more consistent, even if it's consistently wrong? We train our eyes to scan your incoherent ravings, and this makes our job harder. Thanks!
When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home, travling along this lonely road & the night sky she said your along time dead , why dont pour drink & stay awhile & hope to wake the morning with a smile.
And she said it ain't a sin to throw cauition to the wind & long for happiness my friend.
When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home.
That's pretty nice.
I don't see how it relates to some nimrod holding thumb and finger 2" from his eye (or was it at arm's length? I've lost track) and declaring a 100-meter-long ship must be 5 km away, but it is nice.
It was a cold night out under the stars , so I think I have earned the right as a human being to tell you. To go phuck your self .
-
you can see they're lying. their explanation for measuring relies upon drawing two triangles, start from one point, and extending a straight line past the ruler to the ship. then they draw a hypotenuse from the starting point, to the top of the ruler, and then to the other side of the ship. at no point do they explain why this is even possible: there's no way it is always going to be the case that you can draw a straight line between any three points. that's laughable.
their bs is often obvious.
-
you can see they're lying. their explanation for measuring relies upon drawing two triangles, start from one point, and extending a straight line past the ruler to the ship. then they draw a hypotenuse from the starting point, to the top of the ruler, and then to the other side of the ship. at no point do they explain why this is even possible: there's no way it is always going to be the case that you can draw a straight line between any three points. that's laughable.
their bs is often obvious.
Jrowe, you disappoint me, I thought you were smarter than that. Let's try a simple experiment, hold up your hand in front of your face, and extend your index finger, now move your hand so that it lines up with some distant object. Now we have three points in a line, seeing as you think that's laughable, perhaps you'll give an example of when it can't be done.
Ok, now let's use the thumb as well, pick a distant object, and change the spacing of the thumb and forefinger to line up with the front and back of the object. We now have two similar triangles, and we can approximate the ratio of the distance to the object and the length of the object. If we know the distance we can approximate the size, or if we know the size we can approximate the distance.
I say it's as plain as the hand in front of your face, that you don't have a clue. Just who is full of BS is now becoming apparent.
-
Jrowe, you disappoint me, I thought you were smarter than that.
Whaa? You did? Rayzor, you disappoint me, I thought you were smarter than that.
Let's try a simple experiment
Sorry to say, but you've already lost JRowe. Anything that requires more than 'logical thought' is either too difficult or worthless in his tiny mind.
Who needs trigonometry anyway? JRowe has personally discovered aether which explains everything. Ask him for a direct line so you can stop wasting time in the real world with math and science n' stuff.
-
Jrowe, you disappoint me, I thought you were smarter than that. Let's try a simple experiment, hold up your hand in front of your face, and extend your index finger, now move your hand so that it lines up with some distant object. Now we have three points in a line,
let me stop you at the bolded step. you cannot simply assume that the measurements were taken in that kind of arrangement. the points were already there, and set up: you are in no position to alter where they are. you've just assumed they were in a configuration like that: which you cannot do.
seeing as you think that's laughable, perhaps you'll give an example of when it can't be done.
easy:
. .
.
draw a straight line through those three dots if you would.
-
Jrowe, you disappoint me, I thought you were smarter than that. Let's try a simple experiment, hold up your hand in front of your face, and extend your index finger, now move your hand so that it lines up with some distant object. Now we have three points in a line,
let me stop you at the bolded step. you cannot simply assume that the measurements were taken in that kind of arrangement. the points were already there, and set up: you are in no position to alter where they are. you've just assumed they were in a configuration like that: which you cannot do.
seeing as you think that's laughable, perhaps you'll give an example of when it can't be done.
easy:
. .
.
draw a straight line through those three dots if you would.
Not especially relevant to the discussion, but since you didn't understand the method in the first place, you can be forgiven for thinking three dots was somehow significant.
The method is to construct two similar triangles, it should be obvious that if you can't construct the triangles the method isn't applicable, that doesn't mean it's lies and bs as you claim, unless you are now claiming the method doesn't work?
-
Jrowe, you disappoint me, I thought you were smarter than that. Let's try a simple experiment, hold up your hand in front of your face, and extend your index finger, now move your hand so that it lines up with some distant object. Now we have three points in a line,
let me stop you at the bolded step. you cannot simply assume that the measurements were taken in that kind of arrangement.
Well, we are not assuming. The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it. SO yeah, we do get to do it this way.
the points were already there, and set up: you are in no position to alter where they are. you've just assumed they were in a configuration like that: which you cannot do.
Once again, the OP has stated how the ship was measured. No assumptions at all.
seeing as you think that's laughable, perhaps you'll give an example of when it can't be done.
easy:
. .
.
draw a straight line through those three dots if you would.
Completely not what was asked of you.
-
The method is to construct two similar triangles, it should be obvious that if you can't construct the triangles the method isn't applicable,
exactly. you can't justa ssume you are able to construct those triangles.
unless you are now claiming the method doesn't work?
it may work sometimes, it is not universally relevant.
Well, we are not assuming. The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.
that's not even close to enough. if you have a hand, an eye and a ship in existence, that still doesn't mean you can draw a straight line in between them. not even close.
-
For all those who still think that trigonometry is a lie:
http://imageshack.com/a/img907/3285/FTmsF5.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img907/3285/FTmsF5.jpg)
We have a right triangle with one 45 degree angle and a side of 3 cm.
tan(45)/1 = x/3
x=3
We measure the opposite side and guess what? It's 3 cm! crazy!
http://imageshack.com/a/img901/5053/HcZbla.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img901/5053/HcZbla.jpg)
Lets try another:
http://imageshack.com/a/img540/3010/rZp984.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img540/3010/rZp984.jpg)
tan(27)/1 = x/2
x= 1.01
http://imageshack.com/a/img537/8193/SG1QNU.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img537/8193/SG1QNU.jpg)
So basically, the simple, 9th grade-level geometric concepts used by architects and engineers around the globe are actually correct! Isn't that crazy?
For those who don't even understand trig, please use the link in my earlier post. Educate yourself and join the rest of the educated world
-
my problem isn't with trigonometry. did you even read my posts? my problem is with assuming you can automatically draw a line between any three points, which is demonstrably not true. i did not query trigonometry whatsoever, which you would know if you had even bothered to read. what is your problem? can you do anything other than straw men? i am sick of the likes of you thinking you get to belittle and ignore me just because i see through your fantasy.
-
my problem isn't with trigonometry. did you even read my posts? my problem is with assuming you can automatically draw a line between any three points, which is demonstrably not true. i did not query trigonometry whatsoever, which you would know if you had even bothered to read. what is your problem? can you do anything other than straw men? i am sick of the likes of you thinking you get to belittle and ignore me just because i see through your fantasy.
I wasn't talking to you Jrowe, as you can clearly tell from literally the first line of my post. Not everything is about you
-
The method is to construct two similar triangles, it should be obvious that if you can't construct the triangles the method isn't applicable,
exactly. you can't justa ssume you are able to construct those triangles.
unless you are now claiming the method doesn't work?
it may work sometimes, it is not universally relevant.
Well, we are not assuming. The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.
that's not even close to enough. if you have a hand, an eye and a ship in existence, that still doesn't mean you can draw a straight line in between them. not even close.
I see now that I was expecting too much to think you would respond in a logical reasoned manner, you clearly and deliberately chose to misunderstand, and misrepresent the method. The only conclusion is that your self importance and ego are driving your thought processes, and rendering you incapable of logical thought.
There is another explanation for your irrational responses, but I'll keep that to myself for now.
-
Well, we are not assuming. The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.
that's not even close to enough. if you have a hand, an eye and a ship in existence, that still doesn't mean you can draw a straight line in between them. not even close.
Are you saying that your hand is immobile? That you can't move your hand to form a straight line with the ship?
-
Well, we are not assuming. The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.
that's not even close to enough. if you have a hand, an eye and a ship in existence, that still doesn't mean you can draw a straight line in between them. not even close.
Are you saying that your hand is immobile? That you can't move your hand to form a straight line with the ship?
not even close. i'm saying that after the measurements are taken and given to you, you can't move the hand to where you'd like it to be. the measurements are made with the hand, eye and ship in a specific position: you don't get to sort them around after that, you'll change the distances.
that is just a fact.
hence:
you have three points. you have no guarantee that they are in a straight line.
-
Well, we are not assuming. The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.
that's not even close to enough. if you have a hand, an eye and a ship in existence, that still doesn't mean you can draw a straight line in between them. not even close.
Are you saying that your hand is immobile? That you can't move your hand to form a straight line with the ship?
not even close. i'm saying that after the measurements are taken and given to you, you can't move the hand to where you'd like it to be.
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
the measurements are made with the hand, eye and ship in a specific position:
Yes, by lining them up together, just as we are saying, glad you agree.
you don't get to sort them around after that, you'll change the distances.
that is just a fact.
You need to move them around to line them up properly to get the distance to the ship. Unless you are saying you are Magneto and you can move the ship by moving your hand.
hence:
you have three points. you have no guarantee that they are in a straight line.
Well, if they aren't in a straight line, then you haven't been doing proper measurements now have you?
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
The experiment requires that before he takes any measurements he line up his hand with the boat and that way he can be sure that they are lined up. Then The measurements are taken and he can calculate the distance to the boat because he knows that the points line up. Is this really that hard for you to understand? And you think we are the ones who deliberately misunderstand things... I am seriously cosudering blocking you because I think you might be a troll.
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
The experiment requires that before he takes any measurements he line up his hand with the boat and that way he can be sure that they are lined up. Then The measurements are taken and he can calculate the distance to the boat because he knows that the points line up. Is this really that hard for you to understand? And you think we are the ones who deliberately misunderstand things... I am seriously cosudering blocking you because I think you might be a troll.
you don't get to just dismiss what i say just because you'd rather ignore me. i ask yet again, how do you know his hand, eye and boat are lined up? you're just saying "the measurements are aken after this happens." how do you know they are in that configuration?
you're asserting, that's all. if this was the case, what you say would be fine: i just urge caution, you can't assume this is always the case.
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
The experiment requires that before he takes any measurements he line up his hand with the boat and that way he can be sure that they are lined up. Then The measurements are taken and he can calculate the distance to the boat because he knows that the points line up. Is this really that hard for you to understand? And you think we are the ones who deliberately misunderstand things... I am seriously cosudering blocking you because I think you might be a troll.
you don't get to just dismiss what i say just because you'd rather ignore me. i ask yet again, how do you know his hand, eye and boat are lined up? you're just saying "the measurements are aken after this happens." how do you know they are in that configuration?
you're asserting, that's all. if this was the case, what you say would be fine: i just urge caution, you can't assume this is always the case.
I know this because otherwise the experiment wouldn't work, and sense I helped Tom figure out how to do this experiment (in PM's) I know how the experiment is set up.
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
The experiment requires that before he takes any measurements he line up his hand with the boat and that way he can be sure that they are lined up. Then The measurements are taken and he can calculate the distance to the boat because he knows that the points line up. Is this really that hard for you to understand? And you think we are the ones who deliberately misunderstand things... I am seriously cosudering blocking you because I think you might be a troll.
you don't get to just dismiss what i say just because you'd rather ignore me. i ask yet again, how do you know his hand, eye and boat are lined up? you're just saying "the measurements are aken after this happens." how do you know they are in that configuration?
you're asserting, that's all. if this was the case, what you say would be fine: i just urge caution, you can't assume this is always the case.
I know this because otherwise the experiment wouldn't work, and sense I helped Tom figure out how to do this experiment (in PM's) I know how the experiment is set up.
any justificaion for "I know this because otherwise the experiment wouldn't work" forthcoming? what do you mean by 'work'? of course the measurements wouldn't be accurate, that's what i'm saying.
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something. You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring. Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship. This is not an assumption, it is how you measure.
Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something. You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring. Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship. This is not an assumption, it is how you measure.
Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?
you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something. You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring. Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship. This is not an assumption, it is how you measure.
Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?
you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.
So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP. If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something. You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring. Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship. This is not an assumption, it is how you measure.
Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?
you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.
So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP. If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?
looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something. You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring. Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship. This is not an assumption, it is how you measure.
Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?
you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.
So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP. If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?
looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.
Why don't you read the thread? (something that you sure accuse others of not doing when you are the one not understanding things) He has had issues with the math behind the answers, and not how the measurement was taken.
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something. You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring. Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship. This is not an assumption, it is how you measure.
Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?
you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.
So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP. If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?
looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.
Why don't you read the thread? (something that you sure accuse others of not doing when you are the one not understanding things) He has had issues with the math behind the answers, and not how the measurement was taken.
exactly. pay attention. my issue is with your math: the assumptions you make about the observations. it would be the same as if you'd assumed a 45 degree angle. you just can't do that.
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something. You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring. Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship. This is not an assumption, it is how you measure.
Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?
you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.
So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP. If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?
looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.
Why don't you read the thread? (something that you sure accuse others of not doing when you are the one not understanding things) He has had issues with the math behind the answers, and not how the measurement was taken.
exactly. pay attention. my issue is with your math:
No, your issue isn't with the math (well, it might be also but one thing at a time), your issue has been with the taking of the measurement.
the assumptions you make about the observations.
See? You contradicted yourself here. You first said your issue was about the math, then you say it is about our assumptions, which there were none, about the setup of the measurement. That is not math there.
it would be the same as if you'd assumed a 45 degree angle. you just can't do that.
What are you going on about? When you measure something, you line your measuring device up with what you are measuring. If you are having trouble with understanding the simple concept of measuring something, how could you possibly think you have figured more complex ideas out?
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something. You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring. Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship. This is not an assumption, it is how you measure.
Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?
you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.
So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP. If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?
looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.
Why don't you read the thread? (something that you sure accuse others of not doing when you are the one not understanding things) He has had issues with the math behind the answers, and not how the measurement was taken.
exactly. pay attention. my issue is with your math:
No, your issue isn't with the math (well, it might be also but one thing at a time), your issue has been with the taking of the measurement.
the assumptions you make about the observations.
See? You contradicted yourself here. You first said your issue was about the math, then you say it is about our assumptions, which there were none, about the setup of the measurement. That is not math there.
it would be the same as if you'd assumed a 45 degree angle. you just can't do that.
What are you going on about? When you measure something, you line your measuring device up with what you are measuring. If you are having trouble with understanding the simple concept of measuring something, how could you possibly think you have figured more complex ideas out?
your math relies upon an assumption you cannot hold. i have no problem with the person taking the observations: your math ommitted an unknown. there should be the smaller triangle with the hand at the far side, and then there should be a quadrilateral appended to it: you assumed falsely that the hypotenuse of the first triangle must lead smoothly into the side of the second. this is not necessarily the case. making a false assumption is a problem with your math.
try to pay attention rather than obsessing over semantics.
-
Good thing he lined his hand up to the ship before he measured now isn't it?
assertion. cannot be assumed. are you reading anything i'm saying? you measured the ship: that's one triangle (actually, a quadrilateral). he measured the distance from his eye to his hand. that's another. you need to justify the perfectly straight line rather than assuming.
Nope, not assertion, just how you measure something. You line one end of your measuring device with one end of the item you are measuring. Since he is comparing the ship with a part of his body that is 10cm wide, and the ship is the same width of his hand, he has moved his hand closer or further away from himself to match the other hand of his hand to the other hand of his ship. This is not an assumption, it is how you measure.
Now, do you have anything more than your assertion that this is not how the OP took the measurement?
you are the one asserting. i am not saying he didn't, only that it is not necessarily so. his eye need not observe his hand at the same angle with which the hand interacts with the ship. you are giving one way to measure, you are not giving the only way.
So tell us, Oh Wise Jrowe, how is this not explained by the OP. If he has not had any issue with the way we are describing how we think he measured the ship, why you think what we are saying is wrong?
looking at the thread (reading, something you seem to struggle with) he's had plenty of issues with your answers.
Why don't you read the thread? (something that you sure accuse others of not doing when you are the one not understanding things) He has had issues with the math behind the answers, and not how the measurement was taken.
exactly. pay attention. my issue is with your math:
No, your issue isn't with the math (well, it might be also but one thing at a time), your issue has been with the taking of the measurement.
the assumptions you make about the observations.
See? You contradicted yourself here. You first said your issue was about the math, then you say it is about our assumptions, which there were none, about the setup of the measurement. That is not math there.
it would be the same as if you'd assumed a 45 degree angle. you just can't do that.
What are you going on about? When you measure something, you line your measuring device up with what you are measuring. If you are having trouble with understanding the simple concept of measuring something, how could you possibly think you have figured more complex ideas out?
your math relies upon an assumption you cannot hold. i have no problem with the person taking the observations: your math ommitted an unknown. there should be the smaller triangle with the hand at the far side, and then there should be a quadrilateral appended to it: you assumed falsely that the hypotenuse of the first triangle must lead smoothly into the side of the second. this is not necessarily the case. making a false assumption is a problem with your math.
try to pay attention rather than obsessing over semantics.
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line. If you say your had is 10cm, and the other object is the same apparent length as your hand, you have lined the other side of your hand to the other side of the object. You have 5 points now.
Eye
Left side of hand
Left side of object
Right side of hand
Right side of object
The eye, left side of hand and left side of object line up
The eye, right side of hand and right side of object line up
You have two straight lines that converge on a single point, your eye.
You have made two triangles whose sides perfectly line up. There is no other way about it. The OP specifically mentions how he measured the ship. You are the one not understanding what is going on.
-
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.
-
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.
If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.
-
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.
If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.
BJ, you have more patience that I do, he needs to get some new lines however, they keep coming up again and again in every argument. I have a theory, and that is that he doesn't even try to understand, he just plays the dumb card to frustrate debate. If logic fails he falls back on semantics and false assertions. Next thing will be to question what is a line?, and how do you know the aether hasn't distorted it in 5 dimensional mirror space.
-
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.
If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.
great, good for you. why is it a straight line?
-
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.
If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.
great, good for you. why is it a straight line?
Because light travels in straight lines.
-
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.
If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.
great, good for you. why is it a straight line?
You called it Rayzor
-
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.
If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.
great, good for you. why is it a straight line?
Because light travels in straight lines.
so the light from the boat reaches your eye. even if i grant your supposition (which if you knew anything about quantum mechanics you'd know it was bs: light can curve, straight lines are just favored because they usually aren't cancelled out) that wouldn't mean it came by the hand. you've got two points lined up, the eye and the boat. the hand is used to measure, but all that requires is two independently straight lines: hand to eye, hand to boat.
you've got a triangle, but not the one you need.
-
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.
If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.
great, good for you. why is it a straight line?
Because light travels in straight lines.
so the light from the boat reaches your eye. even if i grant your supposition (which if you knew anything about quantum mechanics you'd know it was bs: light can curve, straight lines are just favored because they usually aren't cancelled out) that wouldn't mean it came by the hand. you've got two points lined up, the eye and the boat. the hand is used to measure, but all that requires is two independently straight lines: hand to eye, hand to boat.
you've got a triangle, but not the one you need.
And why should we take your word about how light travels when you can't even understand how to measure something?
-
And the Jrowe show goes on in all it's tedious glory.
Seriously, are there any threads that this fucknut doesn't post all over?
-
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.
If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.
great, good for you. why is it a straight line?
Because light travels in straight lines.
so the light from the boat reaches your eye. even if i grant your supposition (which if you knew anything about quantum mechanics you'd know it was bs: light can curve, straight lines are just favored because they usually aren't cancelled out) that wouldn't mean it came by the hand. you've got two points lined up, the eye and the boat. the hand is used to measure, but all that requires is two independently straight lines: hand to eye, hand to boat.
you've got a triangle, but not the one you need.
And why should we take your word about how light travels when you can't even understand how to measure something?
you don't have to take my word, look up your own scientists.
i understand full well how to measure: i also understand how not to make assumptions.
-
If you take your hand, line up one side to the end of an object, you have made a line.
you make a line between your hand and the object, and your hand and the line. you are not addressing the crux of my point: you have not shown that the lines are at the same angle.
stop ignoring me.
If you move your hand between yourself and a distant object, by definition, you have made a line between you, your hand, and the object.
great, good for you. why is it a straight line?
Because light travels in straight lines.
so the light from the boat reaches your eye. even if i grant your supposition (which if you knew anything about quantum mechanics you'd know it was bs: light can curve, straight lines are just favored because they usually aren't cancelled out) that wouldn't mean it came by the hand. you've got two points lined up, the eye and the boat. the hand is used to measure, but all that requires is two independently straight lines: hand to eye, hand to boat.
you've got a triangle, but not the one you need.
And why should we take your word about how light travels when you can't even understand how to measure something?
you don't have to take my word, look up your own scientists.
i understand full well how to measure:
SO when measuring something in the distance with your hand as reference, what would you do?
i also understand how not to make assumptions.
Other than all the assumptions you make when you say you are right and everyone else is wrong?
-
SO when measuring something in the distance with your hand as reference, what would you do?
the question isn't what i'd do, it's what they did: and you cannot assume tha. i also understand how not to make assumptions.
Other than all the assumptions you make when you say you are right and everyone else is wrong?
why do you persist in whining about a theory you clearly have no understanding of?
oh well, i guess that makes every new scientific theory an assumption. you have a very stagnant view of the world. i believe people may be mistaken: that's just a fact, especially if they refuse to question their presuppositions. if you don't, you're an idiot.
-
SO when measuring something in the distance with your hand as reference, what would you do?
the question isn't what i'd do, it's what they did: and you cannot assume tha. i also understand how not to make assumptions.
Other than all the assumptions you make when you say you are right and everyone else is wrong?
why do you persist in whining about a theory you clearly have no understanding of?
oh well, i guess that makes every new scientific theory an assumption. you have a very stagnant view of the world. i believe people may be mistaken: that's just a fact, especially if they refuse to question their presuppositions. if you don't, you're an idiot.
I got lost somewhere along the way, what was the reason you can't point at a ship? Was it the assumption the guy wasn't blind?, Was it the assumption the ship existed? Or was it the assumption that Jrowe could act in a logical and reasonable manner when confronted with overwhelmingly obvious facts that proved him wrong.
Yes, you can actually point your finger at a ship, or some other distant object, and know for certain that your eye, your finger and the object are in a straight line.
Jrowe, just stop before you launch another idiotic attempt at rebuttal, and ask yourself, are you absolutely sure that you are correct. Insults and derailing don't count.
-
Yes, you can actually point your finger at a ship, or some other distant object, and know for certain that your eye, your finger and the object are in a straight line.
yes, you can do that. when have i ever said otehrwise?
it is not automatically the case, that is all i have ever said. if you can't even be bothered to pay attention to what i'm saying, why do you bother to respond?
-
Yes, you can actually point your finger at a ship, or some other distant object, and know for certain that your eye, your finger and the object are in a straight line.
yes, you can do that. when have i ever said otehrwise?
it is not automatically the case, that is all i have ever said. if you can't even be bothered to pay attention to what i'm saying, why do you bother to respond?
You just said it again. Quote "it is not automatically the case" Care to tell me when you would be trying to make a measurement that it would not be the case that you could point at the object.
It quite clearly IS automatically the case that you can see and point at the thing you are sighting.
-
Yes, you can actually point your finger at a ship, or some other distant object, and know for certain that your eye, your finger and the object are in a straight line.
yes, you can do that. when have i ever said otehrwise?
it is not automatically the case, that is all i have ever said. if you can't even be bothered to pay attention to what i'm saying, why do you bother to respond?
You just said it again. Quote "it is not automatically the case" Care to tell me when you would be trying to make a measurement that it would not be the case that you could point at the object.
It quite clearly IS automatically the case that you can see and point at the thing you are sighting.
you can always point to the object, and look at your hand, but that just creates two straight lines: hand to eye, and hand to object. that doesn't mean they're both at the same angle. i have said this before.
-
SO when measuring something in the distance with your hand as reference, what would you do?
the question isn't what i'd do, it's what they did: and you cannot assume tha. i also understand how not to make assumptions.
Well good thing I am not making assumptions because this is how the OP explained he took the measurement.
Other than all the assumptions you make when you say you are right and everyone else is wrong?
why do you persist in whining about a theory you clearly have no understanding of?
oh well, i guess that makes every new scientific theory an assumption. you have a very stagnant view of the world. i believe people may be mistaken: that's just a fact, especially if they refuse to question their presuppositions. if you don't, you're an idiot.
Yes, you are making assumptions. You are assuming that no one except you understands what the OP has said.
WOuld you care to explain how you measure something with your hand as a reference and not line up your eye, hand, and ship?
-
Well good thing I am not making assumptions because this is how the OP explained he took the measurement.
they did not specify a straight line. you're making assumptions.
Yes, you are making assumptions. You are assuming that no one except you understands what the OP has said.
untrue. i am saying you have not taken into account every possibility: at no point have you addressed this, you've just ignored me.
WOuld you care to explain how you measure something with your hand as a reference and not line up your eye, hand, and ship?
i have: if, for example, your hand is a little higher, you would have a straight line from your eye to your hand, and your hand to the ship: but you would not have a straight line from your eye to the ship that also passed your hand.
-
Well good thing I am not making assumptions because this is how the OP explained he took the measurement.
they did not specify a straight line. you're making assumptions.
He did not need to specify a straight line. He said he used his hand to measure the ship. This means that he lined his hand up with the ship. Only way to do is. If you take a ruler to measure the length of a sheet of paper, do you not line the edge of the ruler up with the edge of the paper? Or do you place the ruler some distance away from the paper?
Yes, you are making assumptions. You are assuming that no one except you understands what the OP has said.
untrue. i am saying you have not taken into account every possibility: at no point have you addressed this, you've just ignored me.
And you are making assumptions that the OP hasn't measured the ship the way he described. I am addressing this point directly. This is not ignoring.
WOuld you care to explain how you measure something with your hand as a reference and not line up your eye, hand, and ship?
i have: if, for example, your hand is a little higher, you would have a straight line from your eye to your hand, and your hand to the ship: but you would not have a straight line from your eye to the ship that also passed your hand.
And is the left edge of your hand lined up with the left edge of the ship? If so, then the two lines are at the same angle.
Is the right edge of your hand lined up with the right edge of the ship? If so, then those two lines are at the same angle.
If not, then this setup is an inefficient way to measure the ship.
-
This means that he lined his hand up with the ship.
i have never said he didn't. are you even bothering to read a word i say?
I am addressing this point directly. This is not ignoring.
you're addressing things i never actually said. that is the definition of ignoring.
And is the left edge of your hand lined up with the left edge of the ship?
there's more to it than just the hand and the ship. pay attention moron.
-
This means that he lined his hand up with the ship.
i have never said he didn't. are you even bothering to read a word i say?
So now since you agree that he lined his hand up with the ship, please point out my assumptions.
I am addressing this point directly. This is not ignoring.
you're addressing things i never actually said. that is the definition of ignoring.
I have directly addressed every the only point you have brought up. You going on about how I haven't is you actually ignoring me.
And is the left edge of your hand lined up with the left edge of the ship?
there's more to it than just the hand and the ship. pay attention moron.
There is? Please point out the OP mentioning anything but using his hand and the ship. If you can't, then you are making assumptions about there being more to it than that. And I thought you said you never made assumptions. Seems like that is just another one of your many assertions.
-
This means that he lined his hand up with the ship.
i have never said he didn't. are you even bothering to read a word i say?
So now since you agree that he lined his hand up with the ship, please point out my assumptions.
I am addressing this point directly. This is not ignoring.
you're addressing things i never actually said. that is the definition of ignoring.
I have directly addressed every the only point you have brought up. You going on about how I haven't is you actually ignoring me.
And is the left edge of your hand lined up with the left edge of the ship?
there's more to it than just the hand and the ship. pay attention moron.
There is? Please point out the OP mentioning anything but using his hand and the ship. If you can't, then you are making assumptions about there being more to it than that. And I thought you said you never made assumptions. Seems like that is just another one of your many assertions.
This is the second time jrowe has been caught lying today.
-
So now since you agree that he lined his hand up with the ship, please point out my assumptions.
did you forget the fact he needs to see with his eye?
are you really that dense?
-
This means that he lined his hand up with the ship.
i have never said he didn't. are you even bothering to read a word i say?
So now since you agree that he lined his hand up with the ship, please point out my assumptions.
I am addressing this point directly. This is not ignoring.
you're addressing things i never actually said. that is the definition of ignoring.
I have directly addressed every the only point you have brought up. You going on about how I haven't is you actually ignoring me.
And is the left edge of your hand lined up with the left edge of the ship?
there's more to it than just the hand and the ship. pay attention moron.
There is? Please point out the OP mentioning anything but using his hand and the ship. If you can't, then you are making assumptions about there being more to it than that. And I thought you said you never made assumptions. Seems like that is just another one of your many assertions.
This is the second time jrowe has been caught lying today.
oh you really don't want to go down that road, i've lost count of how many times i've seen you lying.
-
This means that he lined his hand up with the ship.
i have never said he didn't. are you even bothering to read a word i say?
So now since you agree that he lined his hand up with the ship, please point out my assumptions.
I am addressing this point directly. This is not ignoring.
you're addressing things i never actually said. that is the definition of ignoring.
I have directly addressed every the only point you have brought up. You going on about how I haven't is you actually ignoring me.
And is the left edge of your hand lined up with the left edge of the ship?
there's more to it than just the hand and the ship. pay attention moron.
There is? Please point out the OP mentioning anything but using his hand and the ship. If you can't, then you are making assumptions about there being more to it than that. And I thought you said you never made assumptions. Seems like that is just another one of your many assertions.
This is the second time jrowe has been caught lying today.
oh you really don't want to go down that road, i've lost count of how many times i've seen you lying.
Really? Quote one.
-
There are many ways to solve this problem: Thales theorem, trigonometry, projection of vectors, etc. But the most basic issue here is how humans see. At an individual eye level, we dont see distance. We see points, and its angular position. The key word here is angular: if I put my finger so it blocks the sun, part of the figer is on the same angular position/s as the sun. When we have two objects, we see their distance as angular distance, not linear. Nature, of course, finds a way: given two points of view at a known distance, we can paralax track the distance using basic trigonometry that the brain does for us. This method doesnt spit a number, though, only a sense of distance. In order to calculate the precise distance, we can do paralx calculations on a large scale, or we can use thalos theorem to calculate the lenght of the projected triangle. Euclidian basic stuff that the greeks knew about thousands of years ago, really.
-
So now since you agree that he lined his hand up with the ship, please point out my assumptions.
did you forget the fact he needs to see with his eye?
are you really that dense?
did you forget the fact that he measured the ship with his hand?
are you really that dense?
-
if a ruler is placed in front of you so that both ends of the ruler are equal distances from your eye, and the lines on the ruler are 'placed' along the side of a distant 100m long ship then two lines of sight are formed between your eye and the ship.
You then know:
1. The distance on the ruler that is the 50m point of the ship, 2. the distance to the ruler from your eye and 3. this is a right angle triangle and therefore you can calculate the bisected angle the ship makes with your eye.
Therefore using the calculated bisected angle the ship makes with your eye and using the 50m mid point of the ship and knowing this is a right angle triangle you can then calculate the distance to the ship
-
did you forget the fact that he measured the ship with his hand?
i explicitly said he did. are you even reading my posts? we are concerned with three points.
tehre is a straight line from the ship to the hand. there is a straight line from the hand to his eye. there is a straight line from the ship to his eye.
i am waiting for you to even address my statement: this gives a triangle. you cannot just assume it is a straight line.
if a ruler is placed in front of you...
does not accurately describe the situation. irrelevant.
-
This means that he lined his hand up with the ship.
i have never said he didn't. are you even bothering to read a word i say?
So now since you agree that he lined his hand up with the ship, please point out my assumptions.
I am addressing this point directly. This is not ignoring.
you're addressing things i never actually said. that is the definition of ignoring.
I have directly addressed every the only point you have brought up. You going on about how I haven't is you actually ignoring me.
And is the left edge of your hand lined up with the left edge of the ship?
there's more to it than just the hand and the ship. pay attention moron.
There is? Please point out the OP mentioning anything but using his hand and the ship. If you can't, then you are making assumptions about there being more to it than that. And I thought you said you never made assumptions. Seems like that is just another one of your many assertions.
This is the second time jrowe has been caught lying today.
oh you really don't want to go down that road, i've lost count of how many times i've seen you lying.
Really? Quote one.
in just your recent posts:
"In all the months I have spent on this forum I haven't seen one flat Earth explanation for sunsets."
you have never even tried to address mine despite being repeatedly referred to it. you flee the thread every single time. if you haven't seen an explanation, it's your own ignorance and illiteracy at work.
"the Earth is round for the same reason water droplets are."
what, surface tension?
"you clearly said that gravity drops off linearly even though it does not"
in the thread where the first post explicitly said a non-linear decrease is what we observe
"You clearly don't understand basic math, which it probobaly why you haven't produced any aether equasions yet."
when you ahve explicitly and repeatedly been given your answer multiple times. you also refused to acknowledge my simple request, as you always do when i reply to this bs.
"He denies even the most basic easy to prove scientific knowlage which makes great predictions and denies it in favor of shouting "aether" whenever someone asks him a question."
also you apparently don't understand observation is how evidence is gained, and the fact a simple, well-defined concept answers multiple questions with no alteration is a strength.
you are a liar, just deal with it.
-
if a ruler is placed in front of you...
does not accurately describe the situation. irrelevant.
Only if you chose to be totally retarded and cut out what i have said to create meanings in your perverted little mind
-
if a ruler is placed in front of you...
does not accurately describe the situation. irrelevant.
Only if you chose to be totally retarded and cut out what i have said to create meanings in your perverted little mind
i cut out what you said because it was long and unecessary and remains irrelevant.
-
if a ruler is placed in front of you...
does not accurately describe the situation. irrelevant.
Only if you chose to be totally retarded and cut out what i have said to create meanings in your perverted little mind
i cut out what you said because it was long and unecessary and remains irrelevant.
It was totally relevant. You are just a pervert troll
-
if a ruler is placed in front of you...
does not accurately describe the situation. irrelevant.
Only if you chose to be totally retarded and cut out what i have said to create meanings in your perverted little mind
i cut out what you said because it was long and unecessary and remains irrelevant.
It was totally relevant. You are just a pervert troll
1. learn to quote.
2. learn to not make assumptions.
3. try to even pay attention to the argument i'm making.
-
if a ruler is placed in front of you...
does not accurately describe the situation. irrelevant.
Only if you chose to be totally retarded and cut out what i have said to create meanings in your perverted little mind
i cut out what you said because it was long and unecessary and remains irrelevant.
It was totally relevant. You are just a pervert troll
1. learn to quote.
This coming from someone who usually just italicizes other people because he can't figure out how to use the quote function. Guess you do know how now, so will we quit seeing the italics?
2. learn to not make assumptions.
You asserting assumptions are made is not us making assumptions.
3. try to even pay attention to the argument i'm making.
What argument? All you have done is expose your inability to think.
-
if a ruler is placed in front of you...
does not accurately describe the situation. irrelevant.
Only if you chose to be totally retarded and cut out what i have said to create meanings in your perverted little mind
i cut out what you said because it was long and unecessary and remains irrelevant.
It was totally relevant. You are just a pervert troll
1. learn to quote.
This coming from someone who usually just italicizes other people because he can't figure out how to use the quote function. Guess you do know how now, so will we quit seeing the italics?
2. learn to not make assumptions.
You asserting assumptions are made is not us making assumptions.
3. try to even pay attention to the argument i'm making.
What argument? All you have done is expose your inability to think.
i have answered that: i cannot use the 'insert quote' buttonw ithout my text box becoming empty. it is impossible for me to use multi-quotes: as alive is clearly able to use one quote however, as i am, he as no excuse.
read the thread. i have made the argument. if none of you will even address it, case closed.
-
if a ruler is placed in front of you...
does not accurately describe the situation. irrelevant.
Only if you chose to be totally retarded and cut out what i have said to create meanings in your perverted little mind
i cut out what you said because it was long and unecessary and remains irrelevant.
It was totally relevant. You are just a pervert troll
1. learn to quote.
2. learn to not make assumptions.
3. try to even pay attention to the argument i'm making.
I was not even replying to you. Tom asked for advise and i gave it.
-
if a ruler is placed in front of you...
does not accurately describe the situation. irrelevant.
Only if you chose to be totally retarded and cut out what i have said to create meanings in your perverted little mind
i cut out what you said because it was long and unecessary and remains irrelevant.
It was totally relevant. You are just a pervert troll
1. learn to quote.
This coming from someone who usually just italicizes other people because he can't figure out how to use the quote function. Guess you do know how now, so will we quit seeing the italics?
2. learn to not make assumptions.
You asserting assumptions are made is not us making assumptions.
3. try to even pay attention to the argument i'm making.
What argument? All you have done is expose your inability to think.
i have answered that: i cannot use the 'insert quote' buttonw ithout my text box becoming empty. it is impossible for me to use multi-quotes: as alive is clearly able to use one quote however, as i am, he as no excuse.
Irrelevant. If your browser doesn't work right, get a new browser. It is not like they are costly. The fact remains that you are criticizing someone for not being able to properly use the quote function while you yourself do not.
read the thread. i have made the argument. if none of you will even address it, case closed.
You have made nothing but assertions. Those assertions have been addressed. You then make more assertions that no one has addressed those assertions.
-
if you are not even going to read my posts, don't waste time by rambling blatant bs.
-
if you are not even going to read my posts, don't waste time by rambling blatant bs.
You gonna take your own advice?
-
i have answered that: i cannot use the 'insert quote' buttonw ithout my text box becoming empty. it is impossible for me to use multi-quotes: as alive is clearly able to use one quote however, as i am, he as no excuse.
What is your excuse for not using correct capitalization?