The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: tappet on March 05, 2014, 12:11:20 AM

Title: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 05, 2014, 12:11:20 AM
The round earth community seem to agree with each other that you cannot see left to right earth curvature on the horizon whilst
standing on a beach.
Now when I stand on a beach it looks like I can see curvature.
Would this be just an illusion?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 05, 2014, 02:32:17 AM
I can easily see a curve, but I am not sure whether I am actually seeing the curvature, or if its an optical illusion...

But yeah, you can see 'something'
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Starman on March 05, 2014, 03:50:21 AM
I can easily see a curve, but I am not sure whether I am actually seeing the curvature, or if its an optical illusion...

But yeah, you can see 'something'
Turn your head 90 degrees or look at up upside down.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 05, 2014, 04:57:09 AM
cool :)  I'll try that!
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 06, 2014, 10:44:20 AM
This is an image taken in northern Wisconsin, USA.
 
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Water_horizon.jpg/1280px-Water_horizon.jpg)

 
I've extracted its EXIF data and the focal length of the lens was nominally 30mm, and which is considered a mild wide-angle lens.

Note that the horizon appears curved downwards a couple of degrees.  Most flat earthers would assume that this is due to barrel distortion caused by the relatively wide-angle lens.

Only one problem.  If it was barrel distortion (which it's not) the horizon would appear to be curving upwards by a couple of degrees, because the horizon line is well below the lens's horizontal optical axis.  What you're seeing here could be described as "pincushion distortion" by a photographer only if he was unaware of the focal length of the lens.

So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion.  The camera doesn't lie.
 
 

 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2014, 10:57:28 AM
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.

(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3421/o401.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/o401.jpg/)

Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 06, 2014, 11:13:56 AM
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.


The camera wasn't mounted (levelled) on a tripod.  It was hand-held, hence the slight "tilt".  I could've rotated it with Photoshop, but I didn't want to be accused of manipulating the image.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: 29silhouette on March 06, 2014, 11:18:24 AM
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.
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
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.

Perhaps you could see what happens if you draw a straight line from one end of the horizon to the other.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2014, 11:24:28 AM
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.

(http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9013/scta.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/scta.jpg/)

Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 06, 2014, 11:43:30 AM
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.

Quote
Another fail I'm afraid.

For you my friend... yes.  I'm sorry.
 


Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Pongo on March 06, 2014, 11:45:02 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2014, 11:45:40 AM
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.

Quote
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?
Another fail I'm afraid.

For you my friend... yes.  I'm sorry.
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?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: 29silhouette on March 06, 2014, 11:53:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Ski on March 06, 2014, 11:53:36 AM
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.

They can't help it. 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".
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 06, 2014, 11:55:42 AM
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?  Do you disagree that the horizon, particularly when viewed from a high elevation or at a very wide field of view would have a slight curvature (as this image in fact demonstrates).

And what in particular leads you to believe that the image is distorted in some way?  How would that alleged distortion be achieved?  Could a camera lens with an extremely long focal length—say 1200mm—produce this apparent curve?
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 06, 2014, 12:08:39 PM
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".


It's actually quite bizarre that whenever someone (a round earther like me) posts a photographic image clearly showing what the flat earthers disbelieve, there's a flood of snide personal insults, and and an all-out attack on what's allegedly wrong with the image itself.

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.  They're always ready with the putdowns, but never ready with any evidence in support of those putdowns.

It's also funny to note how the flat earthers describe round earth evidence as "shreds" that the round earthers "cling" to "instinctively".  They must all have the word "pejorative" tattooed on their foreheads at birth?
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 06, 2014, 12:20:12 PM
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.

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.  ;D

This picture is a waste of time.

(http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4555/y95p.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/199/y95p.jpg/)

Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: 29silhouette on March 06, 2014, 12:53:43 PM
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 06, 2014, 01:03:12 PM
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.


Apparently you have no understanding of any optical theory at all?  Not the faintest idea?  Of course it fucking matters what the position of the camera is.  (Sorry about the split infinitive.)  The drop at each side is totally immaterial to the science!  It's the curvature we're talking about.  It wouldn't matter one iota if the apparent "drop" at each side differed by a metre or more—surely even you can grasp that?

The only reason you're claiming that the image is a "waste of time" is simply because you can't seem to understand the very point it's meant to demonstrate.  Which is, of course, the curvature of the horizon.  That's it.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Pongo on March 06, 2014, 01:58:25 PM
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? 

No, I'm not going to do the math because I have eye balls and I can see the severity of the curve.  If want to do the math you can Google the formulas.  Try "Find circumference from arc"  or "radius from arc". 

WARNING: You won't like the answer.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 07, 2014, 01:00:26 AM

So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion.  The camera doesn't lie.
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?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: inquisitive on March 07, 2014, 01:20:57 AM

So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion.  The camera doesn't lie.
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?
Think about it,, imagine what you would see as you moved round.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 07, 2014, 01:22:37 AM
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)
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5382/r6o7.jpg)

Some of you comments are getting boring Geoff.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 07, 2014, 01:31:39 AM

Think about it,, imagine what you would see as you moved round.
So now we have two REers that believe you can see left to right curvature of the horizon whilst standing on the ground.
I really wish you REers could all agree on seeing left to right  curvature from the ground, so we can move on.
I am trying to start here with a solid foundation but it seems like the REers are deliberately stalling me.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Scintific Method on March 07, 2014, 03:21:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 03:32:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2014, 11:50:37 AM

So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion.  The camera doesn't lie.
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?

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.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2014, 11:52:37 AM

Some of you comments are getting boring Geoff.

I'm sorry, but reposting these same two images over and over again doesn't make them more convincing each time LOL.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2014, 11:54:18 AM
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.

And ignorance of this simple, factual  observation is one of the major stumbling blocks for the flat earthers to overcome.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Starman on March 07, 2014, 11:54:47 AM

So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion.  The camera doesn't lie.
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?

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.
I fully agree!!
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2014, 12:09:00 PM
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).
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 07, 2014, 12:13:38 PM
Well at least we are getting somewhere now.
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 12:18:12 PM
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).
(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6362/gz1k.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/gz1k.png/)

Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: inquisitive on March 07, 2014, 12:20:43 PM
Scepti - you said you sent your document to the mods, please give them permission to say that they have received it on here.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 07, 2014, 12:27:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2014, 12:40:47 PM
(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6362/gz1k.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/gz1k.png/)

Uh... the first image is a straight line of finite length.

The other three images are ellipses.

Your point is what exactly?
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 12:50:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: inquisitive on March 07, 2014, 12:52:27 PM
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?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2014, 12:57:09 PM
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"?)
 

 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 12:57:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 12:58:44 PM
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"?)
So you've seen a circular football field floating in the air have you?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: inquisitive on March 07, 2014, 01:00:54 PM
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.
As seen from somewhere outside the circle. So?   What are positive curves?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2014, 01:03:59 PM
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).


 

 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 01:05:12 PM
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).
A football field is only small. It's hardly a yard stick for anything, Geoffrey.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2014, 01:10:23 PM


What are positive curves?

Put simply, if you're standing in the middle of the football field, any tangent drawn from the outside of the field to the perimeter railing will be sloping at xº to the right for the quadrant to your front left field of view, or for the quadrant to your rear right field of view.

(I was just trying to get a rise out of sceptimatic, but it didn't work LOL.)
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 07, 2014, 01:14:27 PM
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?
 

 
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: sceptimatic on March 07, 2014, 01:20:49 PM
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?
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 07, 2014, 09:59:13 PM
Well at least we are getting somewhere now.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 07, 2014, 11:25:51 PM
Well at least we are getting somewhere now.
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.
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.

Tappet, you seem like a very nice guy and you're into cars and all..

But seriously... accusing people who are not delusional about the very thing we stand on, REers if you must call us that, of having no idea, there is a sweet irony to that that you must surely see no?

Who needs proof when you have someone like Skepti on the FE side?  That alone should prove beyond any measure that the earth is round...
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 07, 2014, 11:53:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 12:04:41 AM
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.

Go to the beach.. make your field of vision is as large as possible. and look for your self!
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 08, 2014, 12:24:23 AM
Tell me which REer to debate with, the one who thinks you can see curvature running left to right on the horizon whilst standing on a beach or the one who thinks you cannot. It is too hard debating both and it does not make sense.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 01:14:05 AM
Tappet, do you realise that you've just described debating with FEers?

None of them can agree to a model, a map, any fundamental workings at all... they all have different viewpoints and all think anyone who disagrees with them, regardless of empirical evidence to support their position, is a mind controlled cretin, a shill or part of the conspiracy! lol


Have you considered that you just don't understand certain things, and if you bothered to learn some very basic physics, you'd see that we actually do live on a round globe?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 08, 2014, 01:20:46 AM
Do you believe you can see left to right curvature of the horizon whilst standing on a beach.
Just a simple yes or no would be ample information, cheers.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 01:49:38 AM
yes, but just because I see a curve, does not mean it exists...
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 08, 2014, 01:53:40 AM
Do you think it could be an illusion?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 03:46:31 AM
Well, to be honest I don't know, but I suspect so...

The horizon surrounds you and as you look at anything that curves around like that, it looks more like an arc - or has curvature..

When I was young, sailing with my Dad he always pointed it the 'curvature of the earth' when we were in the ocean on calm days, but since then I have learnt that you really do need to be up very high to be able to see it.

So, logic tells me the curve we see is a result of our point of view relative to the horizon arc circling us.

I haven't looked into the physics of it enough to say much more than that.

Mind you, the curvature you do see is bloody convincing..!
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 08, 2014, 08:53:46 AM
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?


When I stand at the base of the sand dunes at my local ocean beach (Bass Strait) I have a totally uninterrupted field of view of the ocean's horizon of at least 180º horizontally as per this diagram:
 

(http://www.testvision.org/images/200_degs.gif)


The 30º arc denotes the normal "gaze" range.
The 120º arc denotes the normal binocular range.
Each of the 95º arcs denote the normal limits of the 2-D range.

 


Which is exactly the reason the 55mm lens on my camera "sees" the same thing as I do, that is, the curvature of the horizon.
 
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 08, 2014, 02:01:12 PM
Next time you go to the beach take a long straight edge and something to stabilize it at both ends.
The straight edge is 180 degrees. Put your face up close to the middle of the straight edge and look to the right, you will notice the horizon follows the edge then turn your head slowly to the left and the horizon will follow the straight edge all the way through. The straight edge does not lie.
The horizon will always straighten out when you apply the straight edge.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 03:02:38 PM
I don't need to do that because it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 08, 2014, 03:20:04 PM
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.
It proves to me simple experiments are important. It shows me in real life horizon curvature is an illusion.
It shows me any photo of curvature should include a straight edge.
To experiment with a straight edge costs nothing.
To put a straight edge in a photo costs nothing and is easy to do.


Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 03:39:19 PM
But the experiment has to be appropriate to the research you're conducting...

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)
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Scintific Method on March 08, 2014, 03:55:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 03:58:31 PM
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.

Look I never said it would be easy and imagine the level of satisfaction he'd have after doing it!  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 08, 2014, 04:11:27 PM
Which map would you be using ?.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 08, 2014, 04:12:54 PM
But the experiment has to be appropriate to the research you're conducting...

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)

You are missing my point.
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 08, 2014, 04:16:40 PM

Look I never said it would be easy and imagine the level of satisfaction he'd have after doing it!  ;D ;D ;D
I have a spare straight edge if you need one.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 04:25:13 PM
But the experiment has to be appropriate to the research you're conducting...

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)

You are missing my point.
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.

We are divided because we can't know everything.. but that doesn't meant the science doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon)
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question65.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question65.htm)
http://www.howitworksdaily.com/space/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/ (http://www.howitworksdaily.com/space/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/)

I'm sure if we discussed quantum mechanics, even experts in the field would have differing stances on the subject.

We are not scientists, but REers do respect the scientific method and can test many things themselves if they need personal confirmation..  I have given you some ideas on how to run a round earth experiment..

Going to the beach will not tell you anything.. Unless you want to prove that we cannot measure the curvature of a sphere with  a circumference of 40,000 kms from the beach.. Again, it would be like testing the acidity of a cup of coffee by measuring how long you can hold your breath.. its meaningless.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Scintific Method on March 08, 2014, 04:27:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 08, 2014, 04:34:37 PM
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 . ::)   
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 08, 2014, 04:39:59 PM

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.
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 04:50:50 PM

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.
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?

Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 08, 2014, 04:55:07 PM
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 ?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 04:56:51 PM
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 ?

No, how about you fuck off.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Scintific Method on March 08, 2014, 05:01:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 08, 2014, 05:04:50 PM

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.
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?


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.
I am gobsmacked to think a REer  will not even try this.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 05:10:43 PM
I am gobsmacked that you will not test the temperature of a pot of water by picking your nose... ::)

Seems so simple..
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 08, 2014, 05:25:40 PM
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?       
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Scintific Method on March 08, 2014, 05:37:21 PM
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?     

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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 08, 2014, 06:50:30 PM
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?     

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.
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. ?           
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Scintific Method on March 08, 2014, 07:12:10 PM
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 08, 2014, 08:21:07 PM
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

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.
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.     
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Scintific Method on March 08, 2014, 08:41:02 PM
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

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.
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.   

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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 08, 2014, 09:51:40 PM
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

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.
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.   

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. 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 10:41:59 PM
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

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.
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.   

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.

We have another Skepti here by the looks of it.. Might not be worth engaging...
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Scintific Method on March 08, 2014, 10:47:20 PM
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

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.
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.   

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.

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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 08, 2014, 11:11:49 PM
I am gobsmacked that you will not test the temperature of a pot of water by picking your nose... ::)

Seems so simple..
OK I have picked my nose and tried to test the temperature of a pot of water.
Now have you taken a straight edge to your curved horizon. Or are you going to keep speculating about what's going on.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 08, 2014, 11:18:18 PM
I am gobsmacked that you will not test the temperature of a pot of water by picking your nose... ::)

Seems so simple..
OK I have picked my nose and tried to test the temperature of a pot of water.
Now have you taken a straight edge to your curved horizon. Or are you going to keep speculating about what's going on.

Haha! :)

Touche... but.. did it work?

No I haven't.. I live 1 hour 30 mins from the coast, but I am moving back to the beach in a few weeks (Thank god!), I'll do it then :)
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 08, 2014, 11:35:05 PM
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

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.
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.   

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.

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.
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.         
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: glokta on March 09, 2014, 01:47:20 AM
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

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.
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.   

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.

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.
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.       
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!"
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 09, 2014, 03:32:08 AM
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

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.
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.   

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.

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.
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.       
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!"
OWWW What was that wine you just served up. oh sourer grapes ? 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on March 09, 2014, 04:03:54 AM
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

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.
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.   

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.

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.
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.       
Demonstrate how the Earth could be concave.
I know I don't see Earth when I look, angled slightly up, straight forward.
I would also imagine the geography to be much different.
There would be a central great ocean where all the water in the world eventually ends up.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 09, 2014, 10:51:06 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 09, 2014, 10:56:34 AM

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.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 09, 2014, 11:08:31 AM

How about you move on?

At the end of the day—regardless of tappet's straightedge fixation—it's up to him to disprove the virtual mountains of scientific and mathematical and astronomical evidence that's already proved, using 100 different methodologies, that our planet is in actuality an oblate spheroid.

Basic high school logic says that it's a task for the proponent of a new notion that's at odds with the accepted science to provide evidence in support of that notion

And I'm sorry tappet, but you can hardly expect the Stephen Hawkings of this world to accept a couple of snapshots taken of a straightedge at the local beach as... uh... convincing evidence can you?

Also, you don't seem to understand that it's not just a handful of us round earthers on this forum you have to convince;  it's the 6,000,000 scientist all across the planet that accept the current earth model as the only one.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 09, 2014, 11:10:07 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 09, 2014, 11:28:38 AM
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?
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on March 09, 2014, 12:56:18 PM
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.

Please don't impersonate a mod.
I would consider this a warning, but the worst I could do if you don't listen is... nothing.

It's clear that ol' Charlie does not understand non-Euclidean geometry.

And Aus, Scintific has a point, though not sure where he got that perfectly round number.
For a triple-right triangle, the sides of the triangle would have to be pretty god damn long.
Though theoretically, you could get an interior angle sum of greater than 180 degrees at (theoretically) any distance.
Given the tools we as average citizens have to measure, the sides would still have to be pretty long.
It would be easier to make 90 degree turns and see where you end up.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img36/7446/7zd0.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/36/7zd0.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Sorry about the shitty diagram, only access to MS Paint at the moment.
You get the idea.
The black arrow is where you'll be if it's flat.
The red is round.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Scintific Method on March 09, 2014, 02:11:02 PM

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.

I am a 'roundy' mate, and an Aussie, it might pay to double check before attacking someone. :)
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 09, 2014, 02:36:03 PM
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.


Quote
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.

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.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: Scintific Method on March 09, 2014, 02:44:39 PM
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.


Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: tappet on March 09, 2014, 02:52:33 PM
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.
Show me your curved horizon photo with a straight edge to prove me wrong.
Honestly it is an easy task to try.
Although it does require removing butt from armchair.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 09, 2014, 03:52:49 PM

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.

No worries.   :)

And yes, you're correct.  I didn't mention the 1/4 circumference issue.  I was guessing that this sort of maths isn't your average FE's forté.  And the FEs aren't' gonna accept either of our claims anyway, so in the long run it'll end up a moot point LOL.
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 09, 2014, 04:08:54 PM
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.  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.   
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 09, 2014, 04:37:20 PM
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.
 


Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 09, 2014, 05:03:01 PM
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.


Quote
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.

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.

You were right, I was referring to the earth so I still stand corrected.

Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 09, 2014, 09:16:09 PM
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.
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. 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on March 10, 2014, 01:47:19 AM
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 10, 2014, 01:58:59 AM
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Chist-en
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on March 10, 2014, 02:40:55 AM
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Chist-en
I don't get it.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 10, 2014, 03:40:21 AM
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-en
I don't get it.
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.   
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: glokta on March 10, 2014, 04:09:14 AM
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-en
I don't get it.
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.
Problems. So many problems.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: SirSpankalot on March 10, 2014, 04:17:30 AM
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-en
I don't get it.
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.

WTF?

Have you taken your meds today?
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: ausGeoff on March 11, 2014, 04:59:09 AM

Oh you mean my error made of 260, when it should be 270. Its was a get out of jail free card.

Charles:  You can edit your posts at any time by clicking on the "modify" icon to the top right of the response dialogue box.  Or delete your post entirely by clicking on the "remove" icon next to it.
 
(If you edit it after others have made new posts quoting your original comments, they'll still appear in their new posts.)
 
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: charles bloomington on March 11, 2014, 06:41:08 AM
I'm not just playing on the one forum at the one time.  ;) & I'm a shit house one finger tipper . if people are struggling with comprehension of my crap  grammar or I have misspelt something or left a letter out,  I correct it. Shame on me. But thanks for the advice. Have you had ago at trying to get the points or edges of you triangles to meet up ?     
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on March 11, 2014, 02:32:11 PM
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-en
I don't get it.
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.
And so you resort to ad-hominem attacks, which as a reminder, is actually against forum rules.
I'll have you know I'm in the 96-98 percentile when it comes to penis size.
Since your so good at math, I'm sure you can work out the chances, based on that, that my dick is bigger than yours.
Or don't.
Not my concern.
The only person who can see the information in my sig is you.
Get over it.
If you're still uncomfortable, maybe you should get a proxy or a VPN.
The forum mods can see your IP, and use that to locate you if they really wanted.
I can't.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: rottingroom on March 11, 2014, 03:06:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Round Earthers agree
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on March 11, 2014, 03:11:12 PM
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.
Come on, rottingroom.
This thread is about penises and insanity now.
Stay on topic.