I can easily see a curve, but I am not sure whether I am actually seeing the curvature, or if its an optical illusion...Turn your head 90 degrees or look at up upside down.
But yeah, you can see 'something'
Someone needs to put a spirit level on the camera. Both sides should match up if the Earth was a globe and they clearly don't.
Someone needs to put a spirit level on the camera. Both sides should match up if the Earth was a globe and they clearly don't.Indeed, as you've noted, it's not level. Since it's not level, both sides don't match up. Had it been level, both sides would have matched up.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/o401.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/o401.jpg/)][IMG]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3421/o401.jpg
Yep! Still makes no sense. You see, it's supposed to show a globe curvature which should be EQUAL at both ends as it there should be an equal gap at both ends, not just one end, which we an see on the left side and yet nothing on the right.
Another fail I'm afraid.
You can tip the sea up into any angle and you should still have equal ends on a GLOBE model. Can't you understand that?Yep! Still makes no sense. You see, it's supposed to show a globe curvature which should be EQUAL at both ends as it there should be an equal gap at both ends, not just one end, which we an see on the left side and yet nothing on the right.
So amongst a hundred other things of a technical nature that you obviously don't understand, we can now add photography. There'd only be an "equal" gap if the camera was absolutely horizontal, which I've already said was NOT the case here.QuoteYou can tip the sea up into any angle and you should still have equal ends on a GLOBE model. Can't you understand that?
Another fail I'm afraid.
For you my friend... yes. I'm sorry.
Yep! Still makes no sense. You see, it's supposed to show a globe curvature which should be EQUAL at both ends as it there should be an equal gap at both ends, not just one end, which we an see on the left side and yet nothing on the right. Anotehr fail I'm afraid.
Someone needs to put a spirit level on the camera.You've already put forth the answer as to why it's not even at both ends.
You can tip the sea up into any angle and you should still have equal ends on a GLOBE model. Can't you understand that?Yes, we understand. Tilting up and down will have equal ends. Tilting left or right will not.
For the earth to curve as severely as that picture suggests, it would be tiny. Every round-earther should immediately throw this example out lest they look foolish.
For the earth to curve as severely as that picture suggests, it would be tiny. Every round-earther should immediately throw this example out lest they look foolish.
Even the math which shows them that such a thing is impossible is not enough to overcome the instinctual desire to cling to their belief with any shred of "evidence".
Ok, I've went from dead centre with the thick line over the thin line.Yep! Still makes no sense. You see, it's supposed to show a globe curvature which should be EQUAL at both ends as it there should be an equal gap at both ends, not just one end, which we an see on the left side and yet nothing on the right. Anotehr fail I'm afraid.Someone needs to put a spirit level on the camera.You've already put forth the answer as to why it's not even at both ends.
Now, instead of a big thick line, try setting your straight line tool to 1 pixel, start at one end on the exact edge of the waterline, and draw across to the other end on the exact edge of the water line.You can tip the sea up into any angle and you should still have equal ends on a GLOBE model. Can't you understand that?Yes, we understand. Tilting up and down will have equal ends. Tilting left or right will not.
Ok, I've went from dead centre with the thick line over the thin line.Still not what I said, but closer. Anyway, the gap between the thin straight line and the water is wider at the ends than in the middle. Therefor, the horizon is curved in that picture. Thanks for proving it for us.
If your Earth was a GLOBE, then if I was to put an unbendable stick from the middle, like the thick line/stick in the picture, it should be EQUAL both sides and it isn't.Equal if the camera was level, which it wasn't. Regardless, you line shows it to be curved.
I don't care what the camera position is...the horizon is the horizon whether you tilt it or whatever.And? A tree is a tree whether you tilt the camera or not.
If your Earth was a GLOBE, then if I was to put an unbendable stick from the middle, like the thick line/stick in the picture, it should be EQUAL both sides and it isn't. I don't care what the camera position is...the horizon is the horizon whether you tilt it or whatever.
Now this picture does not prove a GLOBE or a flat Earth, as either the picture is doctored or the sea has frozen, as a school of huge whales were about to surface on the left hand side.
This picture is a waste of time.
For the earth to curve as severely as that picture suggests, it would be tiny. Every round-earther should immediately throw this example out lest they look foolish.
Could you give us some simple mathematical evidence to support your claims about the curvature shown in this image being bogus?
So the camera does not lie. Then with the photo you are trying to use, if the photographer had turned 90degrees and taken another photo it would be curved the same. If he did this four times that would be 360 degrees which would be four curves/arcs. Are you claiming a 360 degree horizon is made of a series of arcs?
So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion. The camera doesn't lie.
Think about it,, imagine what you would see as you moved round.So the camera does not lie. Then with the photo you are trying to use, if the photographer had turned 90degrees and taken another photo it would be curved the same. If he did this four times that would be 360 degrees which would be four curves/arcs. Are you claiming a 360 degree horizon is made of a series of arcs?
So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion. The camera doesn't lie.
Notice too that in their sniping, the flat earthers seldom (never?) post an image of their own of any similar scenario, and which would help support their standpoint of a perfectly level horizon.(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6599/rrud.jpg)
So now we have two REers that believe you can see left to right curvature of the horizon whilst standing on the ground.
Think about it,, imagine what you would see as you moved round.
To hit this from another angle, what would you see if you were standing in the middle of a 10km diameter disc, looking toward the edge? I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't be a straight line.It would unless you were at a height.
So the camera does not lie. Then with the photo you are trying to use, if the photographer had turned 90degrees and taken another photo it would be curved the same. If he did this four times that would be 360 degrees which would be four curves/arcs. Are you claiming a 360 degree horizon is made of a series of arcs?
So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion. The camera doesn't lie.
Some of you comments are getting boring Geoff.
To hit this from another angle, what would you see if you were standing in the middle of a 10km diameter disc, looking toward the edge? I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't be a straight line.
I fully agree!!So the camera does not lie. Then with the photo you are trying to use, if the photographer had turned 90degrees and taken another photo it would be curved the same. If he did this four times that would be 360 degrees which would be four curves/arcs. Are you claiming a 360 degree horizon is made of a series of arcs?
So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion. The camera doesn't lie.
As a long-term experienced photographer, I'm really, really, really having a lot of difficulty accepting that people's knowledge of photography and optics is so limited. I'm putting it down largely to the modern crop of simple, fully-automatic point and shoot digital cameras. I use expensive camera bodies and expensive lenses for a reason, and that's to capture the absolute best representation of something occurring in the real world on film.
I can only (politely) suggest that people who're unfamiliar with basic photographic fundamentals and principles do some Google research, and read up about them before commenting on the images (anybody's) posted here.
To hit this from another angle, what would you see if you were standing in the middle of a 10km diameter disc, looking toward the edge? I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't be a straight line.It would unless you were at a height.
(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6362/gz1k.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/gz1k.png/)To hit this from another angle, what would you see if you were standing in the middle of a 10km diameter disc, looking toward the edge? I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't be a straight line.It would unless you were at a height.
Oh dear. The inevitable's happened. We now have a totally, absolutely, laughably erroneous claim from our resident "genius" scientist and researcher who's already (apparently) proved the earth is flat with a very expensive and complex—but as yet unpublished for peer review—research experiment.
Apparently, if sceptimatic were to stand at the very centre of a circular football field, its boundary would be a straight line—apparently tending to infinity—rather than a simple "closed" curve (mathematically, when viewed from inside the field, the boundary is made up of two opposite positive curves and two opposite negative curves comprising the four 90º quadrants).
Scepti - you said you sent your document to the mods, please give them permission to say that they have received it on here.Please do not derail this thread.
(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6362/gz1k.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/gz1k.png/)
My point is, if you're small or low to the ground, that's how your circle would look in the first image and so on, the higher you get.Why an ellipse and not a circle?
My point is, if you're small or low to the ground, that's how your circle would look in the first image and so on, the higher you get.
It's not an ellipse, it's a circle seen from a point of view of being laid low or stood on a circular field. If I made a perfect circle with the dot, then it would be like it was taken from the air. I don't suppose you people can see stuff like this.My point is, if you're small or low to the ground, that's how your circle would look in the first image and so on, the higher you get.Why an ellipse and not a circle?
What are positive curves?
So you've seen a circular football field floating in the air have you?My point is, if you're small or low to the ground, that's how your circle would look in the first image and so on, the higher you get.
I've spent a lot of time standing on football fields in my time, and I've never ever seen a circular 1.2m high boundary railing look anything even vaguely like your first image.
Or your 2nd or 3rd or 4th for that matter.
(I'm 178cm tall. Does that make me "small"?)
As seen from somewhere outside the circle. So? What are positive curves?It's not an ellipse, it's a circle seen from a point of view of being laid low or stood on a circular field. If I made a perfect circle with the dot, then it would be like it was taken from the air. I don't suppose you people can see stuff like this.My point is, if you're small or low to the ground, that's how your circle would look in the first image and so on, the higher you get.Why an ellipse and not a circle?
What are positive curves?
It's not an ellipse, it's a circle seen from a point of view of being laid low or stood on a circular field. If I made a perfect circle with the dot, then it would be like it was taken from the air. I don't suppose you people can see stuff like this.
A football field is only small. It's hardly a yard stick for anything, Geoffrey.It's not an ellipse, it's a circle seen from a point of view of being laid low or stood on a circular field. If I made a perfect circle with the dot, then it would be like it was taken from the air. I don't suppose you people can see stuff like this.
Nope. If (as I said) I'm standing in the centre of a circular football field, there is NO way that the boundary rail is going to magically turn into an ellipsoid! My 170º peripheral vision tells me I'm seeing a semi-circle (minus about 10º or so).
What are positive curves?
A football field is only small. It's hardly a yard stick for anything, Geoffrey.
If you stood on a roundabout you would see the curve. Likewise on a football field, only less severe. If you were stood on something just a few miles in diameter then you see an horizon beause your eyes cannot take in the wider view, so straight it is, just like the horizon you see now...because... you're living on a circle not a sphere.A football field is only small. It's hardly a yard stick for anything, Geoffrey.
Nope. Wrong again my friend. The dimensions of a geometrical figure have nothing to do with its properties. A dinner plate or a football field or our planet... doesn't matter one iota what their relative sizes are.
For a self-described genius, you don't seem to know a lot about mathematics. Is this correct?
Well at least we are getting somewhere now.Ok it looks as though according to round earthers that you can see left to right curvature of the horizon whilst standing on a beach. Tomorrow I will be starting a new thread and if a round earther flip flops and say's you cannot see the curvature until 60,000 ft I will have no choice but to think roundies have got know idea what they are on about.
We have four REers that believe you can see left to right horizon curvature whilst standing on a beach.
So now it looks like the majority of REers can see this curvature.
Well at least we are getting somewhere now.Ok it looks as though according to round earthers that you can see left to right curvature of the horizon whilst standing on a beach. Tomorrow I will be starting a new thread and if a round earther flip flops and say's you cannot see the curvature until 60,000 ft I will have no choice but to think roundies have got know idea what they are on about.
We have four REers that believe you can see left to right horizon curvature whilst standing on a beach.
So now it looks like the majority of REers can see this curvature.
Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from the RE believer about curvature running left to right on the horizon whilst standing on a beach?
Some say you can see it some say you cannot.
Why don't the REers all agree with each other. Something here is wrong.
Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from the RE believer about curvature running left to right on the horizon whilst standing on a beach?
I don't need to do that because it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.It does not prove anything to you, but it does to me.
PS - This is a conclusive test you can do yourself..
1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance
After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" an half-finished square.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26761740/9jsnF.jpg)
PS - This is a conclusive test you can do yourself..
1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance
After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" an half-finished square.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26761740/9jsnF.jpg)
Hate to put a damper on this, but each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns... An easier way would be to pick 3 points as far apart as possible, but still within sight of each other, and measure the horizontal angles between each. That may not be very clear... Lets see if I can clarify: on a map, the 3 points would form the corners of a triangle, and on a flat piece of paper, the 3 angles would add to exactly 180°. What you would be measuring in the real world would be whether those 3 angles actually do add to exactly 180°, or whether they add to >180°. If they add to >180°, then you live on a globe.
But the experiment has to be appropriate to the research you're conducting...You are missing my point.
It would be like me putting my GTA on a Dyno to measure its horsepower, so that I prove that the car is Italian. Or Black.. or that it has a nice stereo..
We missing the mark a bit.
To test the earths curvature you need to be
a) in space and take a photo
b) Take a U2 up and compare the curvature to a ruler in the cruise at 70,000 feet...
c) Take two sticks and measure their shadows
d) observe the moon exclipse and the shape of the earths shadow
e) Measure the glove using Spherical trigonometry - you'll find they are the only triangles that work on the globe
f) Watch a ship disappear over the horizen - it's only 3 kms form you at sea level.. and Ive been at sea thousands of times over the years and I can tell you they do sink.
g) Build a pendulum and watch it rotate...
h) Observe our seasons
i) Observe our time zones
j) Measure variations in gravity around the planet
k) Look at a photo taken from the Apollo Missions
l) The occurrence of noon (i.e. meridian passage of true Sun) isn't simultaneous for two observers situated along an east-west line. In other words, Sunrise and Sunset are not simultaneous for two distant observers
m) The fact that a horizen actually exists - you can see it.
n) You can launch a weather balloon, with a couple of cameras attached..
So there's a few ways you could properly confirm or debunk the shape of our planet, all of which have a direct relationship to the research being undertaken.
HTH.
PS - This is a conclusive test you can do yourself..
1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance
After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" an half-finished square.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26761740/9jsnF.jpg)
I have a spare straight edge if you need one.
Look I never said it would be easy and imagine the level of satisfaction he'd have after doing it! ;D ;D ;D
But the experiment has to be appropriate to the research you're conducting...You are missing my point.
It would be like me putting my GTA on a Dyno to measure its horsepower, so that I prove that the car is Italian. Or Black.. or that it has a nice stereo..
We missing the mark a bit.
To test the earths curvature you need to be
a) in space and take a photo
b) Take a U2 up and compare the curvature to a ruler in the cruise at 70,000 feet...
c) Take two sticks and measure their shadows
d) observe the moon exclipse and the shape of the earths shadow
e) Measure the glove using Spherical trigonometry - you'll find they are the only triangles that work on the globe
f) Watch a ship disappear over the horizen - it's only 3 kms form you at sea level.. and Ive been at sea thousands of times over the years and I can tell you they do sink.
g) Build a pendulum and watch it rotate...
h) Observe our seasons
i) Observe our time zones
j) Measure variations in gravity around the planet
k) Look at a photo taken from the Apollo Missions
l) The occurrence of noon (i.e. meridian passage of true Sun) isn't simultaneous for two observers situated along an east-west line. In other words, Sunrise and Sunset are not simultaneous for two distant observers
m) The fact that a horizen actually exists - you can see it.
n) You can launch a weather balloon, with a couple of cameras attached..
So there's a few ways you could properly confirm or debunk the shape of our planet, all of which have a direct relationship to the research being undertaken.
HTH.
PS - This is a conclusive test you can do yourself..
1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance
After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" an half-finished square.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26761740/9jsnF.jpg)
My point is I would like to experiment myself. To do this I need to start with a solid foundation.
The FEers seem to all agree that you cannot see curvature running left to right whilst standing on a beach, so no problem here.
But the REers are divided and cannot agree with each other.
What is the problem? I thought you guy's had it all worked out. Obviously not otherwise you would not be divided.
Which map would you be using ?.
That's funny it's the REers that told me to go to the beach in the first place to learn.
Going to the beach will not tell you anything..
That's funny it's the REers that told me to go to the beach in the first place to learn.
Going to the beach will not tell you anything..
Now your saying its a waste of time. I am getting fed up with REers dicking me around.
The REer says 'put up a straight edge you will see curvature" I did. Guess what there was no curvature.
Now the REers are saying don't go to the beach and straight edges are no good.
Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?
I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?
I wont and cannot "move on" until it is acknowledged that left to right curvature of the horizon whilst standing on a beach is an illusion and can be straightened out with a straight edge.That's funny it's the REers that told me to go to the beach in the first place to learn.
Going to the beach will not tell you anything..
Now your saying its a waste of time. I am getting fed up with REers dicking me around.
The REer says 'put up a straight edge you will see curvature" I did. Guess what there was no curvature.
Now the REers are saying don't go to the beach and straight edges are no good.
So what? Ask any female what the correct race technique in a car is, you'll get differing answers.. does it mean there is NO race technique? No, it just means they don't know.
It seems a bit strange to me that you think you're debunking a widely accepted theory, one that can be measured in hundreds of different ways just because some people are not experts on the subject.
You're suffering from 'target fixation'.
So those that told you that you can use a ruler to confirm a straight horizen may be wrong.. but it does not discount the mountains of evidence, some of which you can check for yourself, that the earth is a sphere.
How about you move on?
concave same result. your point is ? Its simple to figure out, cut a triangle out of a piece of paper. convex it or concave it ,same mass, same degrees, same result. Which do you claim proves your conclusive sphere?I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
Have you ever tried to stick a flat piece of paper to a spherical surface? I'm guessing not, based on this comment.Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?
"Area mass"? WTF??
How about you get a foam ball, a rubber band, and 3 push pins. Push the pins into the ball so that the rubber band goes around the three without any slack, then measure the three angles and add them up.
concave same result. your point is ? Its simple to figure out, cut a triangle out of a piece of paper. convex it or concave it ,same mass, same degrees, same result. Which do you claim proves your conclusive sphere?I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
Have you ever tried to stick a flat piece of paper to a spherical surface? I'm guessing not, based on this comment.Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?
"Area mass"? WTF??
How about you get a foam ball, a rubber band, and 3 push pins. Push the pins into the ball so that the rubber band goes around the three without any slack, then measure the three angles and add them up.
Thin paper moistened suffices to demonstrate. But if you want to be pedantic. then do away with the paper . your three points will give you the same result convex or concave. it being a complete mirrored reversal. same mass, same degrees ,same result, care to tell me how your three points would give you a different out come being convex or it being concave. ?concave same result. your point is ? Its simple to figure out, cut a triangle out of a piece of paper. convex it or concave it ,same mass, same degrees, same result. Which do you claim proves your conclusive sphere?I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
Have you ever tried to stick a flat piece of paper to a spherical surface? I'm guessing not, based on this comment.Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?
"Area mass"? WTF??
How about you get a foam ball, a rubber band, and 3 push pins. Push the pins into the ball so that the rubber band goes around the three without any slack, then measure the three angles and add them up.
The problem with your paper triangle is that, as soon as you try to wrap it around a spherical surface (or press it inside one), the edges get wrinkled together, which means they no longer follow 'great circle' paths, completely nullifying your example.
I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…LOL how is it proving the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for the surface of the earth to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims it proves the earth is indisputably spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are two options obtainable from the same equation you present.I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…LOL how is it proving the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for the surface of the earth to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims it proves the earth is indisputably spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are two options obtainable from the same equation you present.I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…LOL how is it proving the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for the surface of the earth to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims it proves the earth is indisputably spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are two options obtainable from the same equation you present.I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…LOL how is it proving the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for the surface of the earth to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims it proves the earth is indisputably spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are two options obtainable from the same equation you present.I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…LOL how is it proving the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for the surface of the earth to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims it proves the earth is indisputably spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are two options obtainable from the same equation you present.I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
We have another Skepti here by the looks of it.. Might not be worth engaging...
I am gobsmacked that you will not test the temperature of a pot of water by picking your nose... ::)OK I have picked my nose and tried to test the temperature of a pot of water.
Seems so simple..
I am gobsmacked that you will not test the temperature of a pot of water by picking your nose... ::)OK I have picked my nose and tried to test the temperature of a pot of water.
Seems so simple..
Now have you taken a straight edge to your curved horizon. Or are you going to keep speculating about what's going on.
I didn't miss your point. just pointing out a flaw in your presumption. which returns you back to there being two possibility. if I filled a bowl with corn flakes & they piled higher then the rim of the bowl in the centre, then I added milk . that doesn't proves the curvature is convex. What if we flipped that second referencing your insisting on & applied it the opposite way. lets say the lowest depth of the ocean same measurement in depth as the mounded corn flakes & then filled it with the corn flakes & milk.still doesn't prove a convex. concave seems more likely.Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…LOL how is it proving the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for the surface of the earth to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims it proves the earth is indisputably spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are two options obtainable from the same equation you present.I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
We have another Skepti here by the looks of it.. Might not be worth engaging...
Agreed... To miss such a simple point by such a wide margin takes a special kind of talent.
Sounds more like the reason you still have to wear a bib and make a mess with your cereal. "I'm redefining the world mummy!", "Clean that cereal up! It's time for your medicine and bible study! Don't make me get the hose!"I didn't miss your point. just pointing out a flaw in your presumption. which returns you back to there being two possibility. if I filled a bowl with corn flakes & they piled higher then the rim of the bowl in the centre, then I added milk . that doesn't proves the curvature is convex. What if we flipped that second referencing your insisting on & applied it the opposite way. lets say the lowest depth of the ocean same measurement in depth as the mounded corn flakes & then filled it with the corn flakes & milk.still doesn't prove a convex. concave seems more likely.Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…LOL how is it proving the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for the surface of the earth to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims it proves the earth is indisputably spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are two options obtainable from the same equation you present.I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
We have another Skepti here by the looks of it.. Might not be worth engaging...
Agreed... To miss such a simple point by such a wide margin takes a special kind of talent.
OWWW What was that wine you just served up. oh sourer grapes ?Sounds more like the reason you still have to wear a bib and make a mess with your cereal. "I'm redefining the world mummy!", "Clean that cereal up! It's time for your medicine and bible study! Don't make me get the hose!"I didn't miss your point. just pointing out a flaw in your presumption. which returns you back to there being two possibility. if I filled a bowl with corn flakes & they piled higher then the rim of the bowl in the centre, then I added milk . that doesn't proves the curvature is convex. What if we flipped that second referencing your insisting on & applied it the opposite way. lets say the lowest depth of the ocean same measurement in depth as the mounded corn flakes & then filled it with the corn flakes & milk.still doesn't prove a convex. concave seems more likely.Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…LOL how is it proving the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for the surface of the earth to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims it proves the earth is indisputably spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are two options obtainable from the same equation you present.I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
We have another Skepti here by the looks of it.. Might not be worth engaging...
Agreed... To miss such a simple point by such a wide margin takes a special kind of talent.
Demonstrate how the Earth could be concave.I didn't miss your point. just pointing out a flaw in your presumption. which returns you back to there being two possibility. if I filled a bowl with corn flakes & they piled higher then the rim of the bowl in the centre, then I added milk . that doesn't proves the curvature is convex. What if we flipped that second referencing your insisting on & applied it the opposite way. lets say the lowest depth of the ocean same measurement in depth as the mounded corn flakes & then filled it with the corn flakes & milk.still doesn't prove a convex. concave seems more likely.Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…LOL how is it proving the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for the surface of the earth to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims it proves the earth is indisputably spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are two options obtainable from the same equation you present.I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)
…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
We have another Skepti here by the looks of it.. Might not be worth engaging...
Agreed... To miss such a simple point by such a wide margin takes a special kind of talent.
Next time you go to the beach take a long straight edge and something to stabilize it at both ends.
Hate to put a damper on this, but each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns...
How about you move on?
Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?
Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.
Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?
Please do not use crude insults based on members name's in you comments.
Consider this a warning.
Hate to put a damper on this, but each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns...
And I hate to put a damper on your damper, but geometrically-speaking, this is totally incorrect. The length of the sides of the triangle are totally immaterial. BTW, where did you grab that 10,000km distance from? Samuel Rowbotham's ENaG text book LOL.
For the corners of the triangle to each be 90°, the sides have to be 1/4 the circumference of the sphere, otherwise it won't work.
In the case of the earth, the circumference is ~40,001km, 1/4 of which is ~10,000.Again perfectly true, but again immaterial to the proposal. It works (obviously) with any sized sphere.
For the corners of the triangle to each be 90°, the sides have to be 1/4 the circumference of the sphere, otherwise it won't work.
Perfectly true, but immaterial to this specific proposal for a 270º triangle.QuoteIn the case of the earth, the circumference is ~40,001km, 1/4 of which is ~10,000.Again perfectly true, but again immaterial to the proposal. It works (obviously) with any sized sphere.
I certainly made no mention of the earth, as such, in my comment, nor did SirSpankalot. We were both speaking about a theoretical sphere. It was you who incorrectly assumed we were talking specifically about the earth, because you said "each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns". And that comment is incorrect in the context of a discussion about geometry, and only serves to potentially confuse the flat earthers.
So it might pay you to "double check" others' comments before "attacking" other people yourself.
And frankly I don't give a rat's arse whether you're an Aussie or an Outer Mongolian. Makes no difference to me. The facts of the matter are all that count here.
Show me your curved horizon photo with a straight edge to prove me wrong.Next time you go to the beach take a long straight edge and something to stabilize it at both ends.
You really need to get over this "straight edge" thing my friend.
You're starting to sound a little paranoid LOL.
My apologies Geoff, I assumed that the earth was the subject of the discussion. Still, it might be worth noting that the 270° triangle does only work if each leg is 1/4 the circumference of the sphere in question (which you didn't do). I never intended to come off as 'attacking' anyone, I was only trying to help because I've seen this example go sour before due to a lack of specific details.
I think its you that seems to have a problem with triangles & geometry , three 90 degrees angels add up to 260 degrees & not the required 180 degrees. The point of the edge of the paper distorting proves that if you require three 90 degree angels. Then it not possible to make a sphere were all edges of the triangle will match up point to point with out gaps or over lapping.Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.
This comment makes absolutely no sense from a scientific standpoint. In fact, each of your claims relies on an artificial, abstract set of properties about physical entities that simply don't (and can't) perform as you claim they do. No person on earth can get a geometrically "flat" piece of paper (or any other material) to adhere perfectly to a spherical object without distorting the paper.
This fanciful concept of yours in fact actually aids the round earth argument, rather than the flat earth argument—if you think about Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.
Presumably you can accept the geometry that defines a triangle containing three 90º angles?
I think its you that seems to have a problem with triangles & geometry, three 90 degrees angels add up to 260 degrees & not the required 180 degrees.
For the corners of the triangle to each be 90°, the sides have to be 1/4 the circumference of the sphere, otherwise it won't work.
Perfectly true, but immaterial to this specific proposal for a 270º triangle.QuoteIn the case of the earth, the circumference is ~40,001km, 1/4 of which is ~10,000.Again perfectly true, but again immaterial to the proposal. It works (obviously) with any sized sphere.
I certainly made no mention of the earth, as such, in my comment, nor did SirSpankalot. We were both speaking about a theoretical sphere. It was you who incorrectly assumed we were talking specifically about the earth, because you said "each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns". And that comment is incorrect in the context of a discussion about geometry, and only serves to potentially confuse the flat earthers.
So it might pay you to "double check" others' comments before "attacking" other people yourself.
And frankly I don't give a rat's arse whether you're an Aussie or an Outer Mongolian. Makes no difference to me. The facts of the matter are all that count here.
My apologies Geoff, I assumed that the earth was the subject of the discussion. Still, it might be worth noting that the 270° triangle does only work if each leg is 1/4 the circumference of the sphere in question (which you didn't do). I never intended to come off as 'attacking' anyone, I was only trying to help because I've seen this example go sour before due to a lack of specific details.
Oh you mean my error made of 260, when it should be 270. Its was a get out of jail free card. ;) :) Don't ever say I'm not christen.I think its you that seems to have a problem with triangles & geometry, three 90 degrees angels add up to 260 degrees & not the required 180 degrees.
And Charles reckons I need to check my maths LOL.
Check out non-Euclidean geometry mate and get back to us.
Don't ever say I'm not christen.What?
sorry my bad its a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Chist-enDon't ever say I'm not christen.What?
I don't get it.sorry my bad its a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Chist-enDon't ever say I'm not christen.What?
I dont get danasoft.com ,its only used by those sporting shrunken testicles & a very small penis. pathetic form of intermediation & an invasion of privacy by third party. I never contracted to when signing up to this forum. breech of contract mod. Have them remove it.I don't get it.sorry my bad its a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-enDon't ever say I'm not christen.What?
Problems. So many problems.I dont get danasoft.com ,its only used by those sporting shrunken testicles & a very small penis. pathetic form of intermediation & an invasion of privacy by third party. I never contracted to when signing up to this forum. breech of contract mod. Have them remove it.I don't get it.sorry my bad its a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-enDon't ever say I'm not christen.What?
I dont get danasoft.com ,its only used by those sporting shrunken testicles & a very small penis. pathetic form of intermediation & an invasion of privacy by third party. I never contracted to when signing up to this forum. breech of contract mod. Have them remove it.I don't get it.sorry my bad its a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-enDon't ever say I'm not christen.What?
Oh you mean my error made of 260, when it should be 270. Its was a get out of jail free card.
And so you resort to ad-hominem attacks, which as a reminder, is actually against forum rules.I dont get danasoft.com ,its only used by those sporting shrunken testicles & a very small penis. pathetic form of intermediation & an invasion of privacy by third party. I never contracted to when signing up to this forum. breech of contract mod. Have them remove it.I don't get it.sorry my bad its a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-enDon't ever say I'm not christen.What?
Which map would you be using ?.
Makes no difference. All you need is 3 points, as far apart as possible while still being within sight of each other, and measure the horizontal angles between them with a theodolite (should have pointed that out before, sorry). If those 3 angles add to any more than 180°, then you're almost certainly living on a globe.
Come on, rottingroom.Which map would you be using ?.
Makes no difference. All you need is 3 points, as far apart as possible while still being within sight of each other, and measure the horizontal angles between them with a theodolite (should have pointed that out before, sorry). If those 3 angles add to any more than 180°, then you're almost certainly living on a globe.
I don't think you would want to use a theodolite because the lines of sight would most definitely be straight lines. Fortunately for RE's, we are not measuring the angles of the lines of site and are instead measuring the surface of the earth. I don't think measuring this to satisfaction would be as simple as it may seem.