I normally don't like threads that just link to a video and offer nothing concrete, but this one popped up in another thread, linked to by Woody ( thanks Woody )
And is worthy of it's own thread and separate discussion, he raises some interesting points.
! No longer available (http://#)
I normally don't like threads that just link to a video and offer nothing concrete, but this one popped up in another thread, linked to by Woody ( thanks Woody )
And is worthy of it's own thread and separate discussion, he raises some interesting points.
! No longer available (http://#)
he raises some interesting points.
he raises some interesting points.
Why don't you raise those points then?
If you don't like posts that do little more than dump a video link, don't assume you're the exception to that rule. if there are good points in a video, take the radical step of outlining them. I'm with the FEers. I'm not in the mood to stop whatever I'm doing, pause music etc and sit down for 45 minutes of what's statistically likely to be an argument that's already been done to death.
If you can't be bothered to write an argument down, don't expect anyone to be bothered to write down a response. Don't expect the others on the forum to do any more than you'd do: it's a good general rule.
he raises some interesting points.
Why don't you raise those points then?
If you don't like posts that do little more than dump a video link, don't assume you're the exception to that rule. if there are good points in a video, take the radical step of outlining them. I'm with the FEers. I'm not in the mood to stop whatever I'm doing, pause music etc and sit down for 45 minutes of what's statistically likely to be an argument that's already been done to death.
If you can't be bothered to write an argument down, don't expect anyone to be bothered to write down a response. Don't expect the others on the forum to do any more than you'd do: it's a good general rule.
Did you watch the video?
he raises some interesting points.
Why don't you raise those points then?
If you don't like posts that do little more than dump a video link, don't assume you're the exception to that rule. if there are good points in a video, take the radical step of outlining them. I'm with the FEers. I'm not in the mood to stop whatever I'm doing, pause music etc and sit down for 45 minutes of what's statistically likely to be an argument that's already been done to death.
If you can't be bothered to write an argument down, don't expect anyone to be bothered to write down a response. Don't expect the others on the forum to do any more than you'd do: it's a good general rule.
Did you watch the video?
The 45 minute length is quite discouraging, so It'd be nice if you listed at least a few of those good points, and maybe time markers. Or a small explanation of the video (reading the comments now, I understand that it is probably quite interesting, so I'll probably watch it later).
I normally don't like threads that just link to a video and offer nothing concrete, but this one popped up in another thread, linked to by Woody ( thanks Woody )
And is worthy of it's own thread and separate discussion, he raises some interesting points.
! No longer available (http://#)
Hi Ray,
I watched you video and it was interesting. I know very little about surveying, probably just enough to get me in trouble for bring up this issue or my thoughts on the subject. I know enough that they do use triangulation to measure areas that they can't get to easily by measuring clearing they can get to easily. That is the way they surveyed my property one time. They didn't want to go in the woods, so they used a clear field to measure and then they could find the length through the woods.
At around 17 or 18 minutes the video guy brought up plane triangles and that there angles add up to 180O and he brought up spherical excess where the angles add up to be >180O and this was because the Earth was round. I seen where this has been brought up before on this forum. I can understand this on a curved surface.
Then he doesn't mention this anymore. All he talks about then on is plane triangles to measure the Earth. He shows maps where they use plane triangles to measure the land and tall structures. To me, it wouldn't make sense to measure the earth using plane triangles if the Earth is round because none of the triangles would add up to 180Oand all the measurements would be off by a certain amount. It looks to me we should be using the other triangle, the one that it's angles are greater than 180O and by how much greater would they be? How would you find that out? It may be okay to use plane triangles to survey your property, but to survey a country, it looks the wrong method to me.
This is just me thinking again, I know in my bones you are going to steer straight again.
I would suggest these parts of the video:
14:00-18:05 Spherical Excess
25:30- 33:55 Talks about mistakes made in many FE videos make determining curvature and conducts his own measurements.
Did you watch the video?No, I have better things to do.
Did you watch the video?No, I have better things to do.
Not everyone's in a position to watch videos (not alone, on phone with limited battery...) and even so they take far longer to make a point that can be made in writing. Plus if they're busy in real life (as I am) dedicating 45 minutes plus pauses/rewatches if anything's not understood first time is more of an investment than I can afford for a week or so.
Seriously, why is it you refuse to write down a point?
If Woody's references make sense, then it sounds easily possible to actually note down highlights. if it makes you feel better, link to the video at the end as a source/further information, but if you're on a text-based forum consider actually using text.
You expect people to write down responses, do them the courtesy of writing in turn. Just dropping a link when you yourself said you don't like those kinds of posts is a winning combination of laziness, hypocrisy and just generally being annoying. If there's a good argument, write it down.
Ok, so you are too busy to watch it. No problem. I didn't expect responses from people who haven't watched it.Then don't expect any responses (which makes posting it rather pointless).
Yet here you are....Did you watch the video?No, I have better things to do.
There's a fair difference between a couple of minutes' break on an oft-amusing site, and 45+ minutes on a video that likely contains nothing I haven't heard before.Yet here you are....Did you watch the video?No, I have better things to do.
Ok, so you are too busy to watch it. No problem. I didn't expect responses from people who haven't watched it.Then don't expect any responses (which makes posting it rather pointless).
Ok, so you are too busy to watch it. No problem. I didn't expect responses from people who haven't watched it.Then don't expect any responses (which makes posting it rather pointless).
Not as pointless as responding if you haven't a clue what it's about.
Then he doesn't mention this anymore. All he talks about then on is plane triangles to measure the Earth. He shows maps where they use plane triangles to measure the land and tall structures. To me, it wouldn't make sense to measure the earth using plane triangles if the Earth is round because none of the triangles would add up to 180Oand all the measurements would be off by a certain amount. It looks to me we should be using the other triangle, the one that it's angles are greater than 180O and by how much greater would they be? How would you find that out? It may be okay to use plane triangles to survey your property, but to survey a country, it looks the wrong method to me.When you think of the way a surveyor works, each individual triangle is always made up of 3 straight lines, so on its own is a plane triangle (any triangle is a plane figure). It is only when you cover a large area with a grid of such triangles covering a curved surface that a shperical excess can be seen.
This is just me thinking again, I know in my bones you are going to steer straight again.
Did you watch the video?No, I have better things to do.
Not everyone's in a position to watch videos (not alone, on phone with limited battery...) and even so they take far longer to make a point that can be made in writing. Plus if they're busy in real life (as I am) dedicating 45 minutes plus pauses/rewatches if anything's not understood first time is more of an investment than I can afford for a week or so.
Seriously, why is it you refuse to write down a point?
If Woody's references make sense, then it sounds easily possible to actually note down highlights. if it makes you feel better, link to the video at the end as a source/further information, but if you're on a text-based forum consider actually using text.
You expect people to write down responses, do them the courtesy of writing in turn. Just dropping a link when you yourself said you don't like those kinds of posts is a winning combination of laziness, hypocrisy and just generally being annoying. If there's a good argument, write it down.
I watched the video.
It was interesting but way too long and the sarcasm was unnecessary.
It did make me think of what should be a fairly easy experiment, if you are a surveyor or know one.
Unfortunately I fail on both points.
Surveyor measures the distance from building A to building B at say 50 ft up, or the 5th floor for simplicity sake.
Go up 5 floors and take another measurement.
On a FE the distances should be the same.
On a RE the second measurement should be longer.
If the 2nd measurement is shorter, that would be wild.
Any surveyors out there?
Well, I finally made time in my busy life to watch the stupid video. I am only about 15 minutes in, and all I can say is oh my god, this guy is boring as hell. I can sum up this guy's knowledge by quoting him... "The conditions are better for viewing at night." lolDidn't think you'd be interested in measurements that prove the shape of the earth!
I watched the video.
It was interesting but way too long and the sarcasm was unnecessary.
It did make me think of what should be a fairly easy experiment, if you are a surveyor or know one.
Unfortunately I fail on both points.
Surveyor measures the distance from building A to building B at say 50 ft up, or the 5th floor for simplicity sake.
Go up 5 floors and take another measurement.
On a FE the distances should be the same.
On a RE the second measurement should be longer.
If the 2nd measurement is shorter, that would be wild.
Any surveyors out there?
That's... not an easy experiment.
Two such buildings enough of a distance apart that the measurement will be different enough, measuring the distance 50 feet in the air... With permissions etc...
Easiest experiments are to take a trip to Antarctica to see the 24 hour Sun, or to the equator to see circumpolar stars around two points, or just taking a trip to the beach and trying to see a ship with a telescope once it's gone over the horizon. Or performing Eratosphenes' experiment at several points, to see if the given distance to the Sun is consistent.
If you can get a good laser rangefinder, something the scale of the towers of the golden gate bridge or humber bridge would should be enough (they are a bit more than an inch further apart at the tops).I watched the video.
It was interesting but way too long and the sarcasm was unnecessary.
It did make me think of what should be a fairly easy experiment, if you are a surveyor or know one.
Unfortunately I fail on both points.
Surveyor measures the distance from building A to building B at say 50 ft up, or the 5th floor for simplicity sake.
Go up 5 floors and take another measurement.
On a FE the distances should be the same.
On a RE the second measurement should be longer.
If the 2nd measurement is shorter, that would be wild.
Any surveyors out there?
That's... not an easy experiment.
Two such buildings enough of a distance apart that the measurement will be different enough, measuring the distance 50 feet in the air... With permissions etc...
Easiest experiments are to take a trip to Antarctica to see the 24 hour Sun, or to the equator to see circumpolar stars around two points, or just taking a trip to the beach and trying to see a ship with a telescope once it's gone over the horizon. Or performing Eratosphenes' experiment at several points, to see if the given distance to the Sun is consistent.
The point I was trying to make was a surveyor should be able to measure the distance between 2 buildings and figure out if they are parallel to each other. Whatever those measurements or how you do it, I don't know. As I said I'm not a surveyor.
For me flying to Antarctica is not an option.
Circumpolar stars around 2 points? Over my head.
Don't know from Eratosphene.
I've seen ships, shore whatever disappear over the horizon and been told it's cause of refraction or just ignored.
I'm curious, just hypothetically, how far apart would the buildings have to be to say the measurements are accurate?
Any surveyors out there that believe in a FE?
If you can get a good laser rangefinder, something the scale of the towers of the golden gate bridge or humber bridge would should be enough (they are a bit more than an inch further apart at the tops).I imagine the problem would be trying to ensure the laser goes to the comparative point at the exact same height on the other tower. It would be way too easy to be an inch off from just where you place the rangefinder.
This thread is over.
Here is some basic FLAT EARTH REALITY for all of you.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/124639197_6d8031f5f0.jpg?v=0)
If you can get a good laser rangefinder, something the scale of the towers of the golden gate bridge or humber bridge would should be enough (they are a bit more than an inch further apart at the tops).I imagine the problem would be trying to ensure the laser goes to the comparative point at the exact same height on the other tower. It would be way too easy to be an inch off from just where you place the rangefinder.
This experiment isn't really feasible.
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away. Welcome to the world of perspective.Welcome to the world of being proven wrong. You've been living in it for years, but you haven't realized it yet. Surprise! It's shaped like a globe.
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away. Welcome to the world of perspective.Welcome to the world of being proven wrong. You've been living in it for years, but you haven't realized it yet. Surprise! It's shaped like a globe.
No, everyone else understands perspective. But maybe consider that the "swell" is the curvature of the earth. The peak is clearly very far out, and doesn't resemble anything like a wave.Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away. Welcome to the world of perspective.Welcome to the world of being proven wrong. You've been living in it for years, but you haven't realized it yet. Surprise! It's shaped like a globe.
I seem to be the only one in this discussion who is not trying to deny the laws of perspective.
You people are the ones trying to redefine the laws of perspective. You make claims, such as, "Perspective does not work on telescopes." This is so amusing watching you squirm in an attempt to hide your lies. lolSince when has anyone said that?? Perspective decreases with distance; that's a self-evident fact.
You people are the ones trying to redefine the laws of perspective. You make claims, such as, "Perspective does not work on telescopes." This is so amusing watching you squirm in an attempt to hide your lies. lolSince when has anyone said that?? Perspective decreases with distance; that's a self-evident fact.
You people are the ones trying to redefine the laws of perspective. You make claims, such as, "Perspective does not work on telescopes." This is so amusing watching you squirm in an attempt to hide your lies. lol
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away. Welcome to the world of perspective.The laws of perspective won't block anything if your vantage point is above the blockages. You'd need swells at a pretty impressive size to blot out that much of a building.
If you can get a good laser rangefinder, something the scale of the towers of the golden gate bridge or humber bridge would should be enough (they are a bit more than an inch further apart at the tops).I imagine the problem would be trying to ensure the laser goes to the comparative point at the exact same height on the other tower. It would be way too easy to be an inch off from just where you place the rangefinder.
This experiment isn't really feasible.
Teacher, teacher, I know!This thread is over.
Here is some basic FLAT EARTH REALITY for all of you.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/124639197_6d8031f5f0.jpg?v=0)
And we can't see the bottom of the buildings because?
RANGE ESTIMATION
Question CIC concerning the radar ranges to visual contacts and compare them with your estimated range.
The only readily available reference point you can use when estimating ranges is the horizon. Knowing your height above the waterline will help you estimate ranges because the distance to the horizon varies with the height of the eye (Figure 5-5).At a height of 50 feet, for example, the distance to the horizon is about 16,000 yards (8 miles); at a height of 100 feet, the distance is about 23,000 yards (11-1/2 miles). Practice estimating ranges to other vessels in company whose distances are known or can be easily determined.Figure 5-5: Range – Height Table
RANGE TO HORIZON
If you can get a good laser rangefinder, something the scale of the towers of the golden gate bridge or humber bridge would should be enough (they are a bit more than an inch further apart at the tops).I imagine the problem would be trying to ensure the laser goes to the comparative point at the exact same height on the other tower. It would be way too easy to be an inch off from just where you place the rangefinder.
This experiment isn't really feasible.
Not really, he shows in the video how he measured zenith angles at a one mile interval, along a north south highway, and confirms the 1 arc minute per mile variation in zenith angle.
Since you are too busy polishing your nails :) to watch the video you only need to watch from 30:15 to 33:36.
(http://)
If you are two people, one could use a bit of plywood. As long as the rangefinder and the plywood bit have the same relation to the towers at the ground and on the top (I don't know what the base looks like on these bridges, so it might be hard or not), like for example from the center of one tower to the center of the other, it should work well. So at the base you measure from the center (but stand to the left or right of the tower, it would be hard to stand inside them), and at the top you measure from the center.If you can get a good laser rangefinder, something the scale of the towers of the golden gate bridge or humber bridge would should be enough (they are a bit more than an inch further apart at the tops).I imagine the problem would be trying to ensure the laser goes to the comparative point at the exact same height on the other tower. It would be way too easy to be an inch off from just where you place the rangefinder.
This experiment isn't really feasible.
Not really, he shows in the video how he measured zenith angles at a one mile interval, along a north south highway, and confirms the 1 arc minute per mile variation in zenith angle.
Since you are too busy polishing your nails :) to watch the video you only need to watch from 30:15 to 33:36.
(http://)
Analysing bifurcations and the Rayleigh-Faber-Krahn inequality actually. My nails are fine :P
That's not the experiment that was proposed. Trying to get a laser rangefinder to give an accurate measurement between two towers isn't really the same as using theodolites and mile markers.
If you are two people, one could use a bit of plywood. As long as the rangefinder and the plywood bit have the same relation to the towers at the ground and on the top (I don't know what the base looks like on these bridges, so it might be hard or not), like for example from the center of one tower to the center of the other, it should work well. So at the base you measure from the center (but stand to the left or right of the tower, it would be hard to stand inside them), and at the top you measure from the center.It'd have to be a very small bit of plywood: avoid the laser going at any angle. Angles would mean quite a bit more distance on this scale. And if it's that small, good luck finding it.
Teacher, teacher, I know!This thread is over.
Here is some basic FLAT EARTH REALITY for all of you.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/124639197_6d8031f5f0.jpg?v=0)
And we can't see the bottom of the buildings because?Perspective and Bendy Light!What I would like to see is that same photo taken at different times of day. We have seen extreme cases that vary from a normal view to a Fata "Morgana" situation, but some more normal cases of varying refraction would be very useful.
As it both sides often "claim" evidence from the same photograph!
Also remember that ships' lookouts for centuries have used the visible horizon distance to estimate the range of other ships and land and that range varies in a fairly predictable way with eye height. The following is an extract from a USN Handbook ( ;D Sorry, but I guess they are part of the conspiracy! ;D)Quote from: Lookout Training Handbook NAVEDTRA 12968-DRANGE ESTIMATION
Question CIC concerning the radar ranges to visual contacts and compare them with your estimated range.
The only readily available reference point you can use when estimating ranges is the horizon. Knowing your height above the waterline will help you estimate ranges because the distance to the horizon varies with the height of the eye (Figure 5-5).At a height of 50 feet, for example, the distance to the horizon is about 16,000 yards (8 miles); at a height of 100 feet, the distance is about 23,000 yards (11-1/2 miles). Practice estimating ranges to other vessels in company whose distances are known or can be easily determined.Figure 5-5: Range – Height Table
RANGE TO HORIZON
::) Do you think those poor sailors got confused when they found that the Navy had lied to them? ::)
Or you can just set the rangefinder to point straight forwards (90° off the ground). It will add a little extra distance because it will still hit the plywood at an angle, as the earth is round. But if that happens, then that proves curvature. that, and the extra added distance from the towers being further apart.If you are two people, one could use a bit of plywood. As long as the rangefinder and the plywood bit have the same relation to the towers at the ground and on the top (I don't know what the base looks like on these bridges, so it might be hard or not), like for example from the center of one tower to the center of the other, it should work well. So at the base you measure from the center (but stand to the left or right of the tower, it would be hard to stand inside them), and at the top you measure from the center.It'd have to be a very small bit of plywood: avoid the laser going at any angle. Angles would mean quite a bit more distance on this scale. And if it's that small, good luck finding it.
Plus there's the matter of lining up position. You'd need the two towers to be identical (unlikely as humans built them), and be able to measure to the exact centre on both, which is hardly an easy thing to do simultaneously.
And you'd need to hold the rangefinder at the same point, relative to the other tower.
Or you can just set the rangefinder to point straight forwards (90° off the ground). It will add a little extra distance because it will still hit the plywood at an angle, as the earth is round. But if that happens, then that proves curvature. that, and the extra added distance from the towers being further apart.Except how would you measure ninety degrees from the ground when up the tower? Ninety degrees to the floor doesn't mean much: it's very rare that floor's perfectly level, especially if there are boards. Something similar holds for the ground.
Fair enough, didn't bother to do those maths.Or you can just set the rangefinder to point straight forwards (90° off the ground). It will add a little extra distance because it will still hit the plywood at an angle, as the earth is round. But if that happens, then that proves curvature. that, and the extra added distance from the towers being further apart.Except how would you measure ninety degrees from the ground when up the tower? Ninety degrees to the floor doesn't mean much: it's very rare that floor's perfectly level, especially if there are boards. Something similar holds for the ground.
Take golden gate bridge. Even if your horizontal or vertical angle is 0.02 degrees off (minuscule: one fiftieth of a degree), the approx 2700m distance would come out two inches longer. That could give false curvature on a FE or, if the mistake is made at ground level and corrected for higher up, would give FE or even concave Earth measurements.
It's just a matter of error. In any situation you're going to get bars either side: measuring something with a typical ruler, and it's maybe 1mm because nothing smaller can be measured. In statistics this kind of thing's called standard deviation: any result that falls within that standard deviation may as well be taken to be the same, in practise.
With such a small variation between FET and RET in this experiment, combined with comparing measurements on such a huge scale, while it's certainly theoretically possible, in practise it's not going to achieve anything. Even on a FE, a slight mistake in measurement which there are so many opportunities for (a tilted floorboard, a rangefinder at a slightly off horizontal angle even if it is ninety degrees from the ground, a slightly off distance from the end of the tower so you're measuring a different distance either way...) would give a larger distance. Likewise on a RE, if you measure the distance at ground level from a point just outside the tower, then you'd need to have the rangefinder out the window higher up the tower (or at least measure the distance to said point outside the tower and subtract it), and a mistake there might give FE measurements.
There's just too much that could go wrong.
But how would you be so inclined as to assume that there is "likely" no information in the video which could be new to you, if you have not watched it? Why the fuck are you even here arguing about the fact that he posted a video? Don't like it? Don't want to watch it? Then fuck off to a thread where you can actually have a say in the argument. In this case you don't because YOU are too lazy or just unwilling to observe what's being presented. Just like any other case in a debate between FE and RE, all you people do is snub out logic and honest opposition during debate. So if you don't have time to go over the video then again, go to a different thread that's only text, this guy hasn't done anything wrong by sharing a video. Hell even this video is more credible in explaining and supporting the idea of a round earth than any proof I've seen supporting the FE model.There's a fair difference between a couple of minutes' break on an oft-amusing site, and 45+ minutes on a video that likely contains nothing I haven't heard before.Yet here you are....Did you watch the video?No, I have better things to do.
But how would you be so inclined as to assume that there is "likely" no information in the video which could be new to you, if you have not watched it? Why the fuck are you even here arguing about the fact that he posted a video?I'm pretty sure there won't be much new information because there very rarely is. I've been on this site for a while, there are only a few arguments actually used, and which are used by newcomers and veteran members alike. There are only a finite few kinds of arguments made, and I've heard them. Circumpolar stars, to the coriolis effect, to flight times/distances, to sunsets, to explanations of the moon and related phenomenon...
Don't like it? Don't want to watch it? Then fuck off to a thread where you can actually have a say in the argument. In this case you don't because YOU are too lazy or just unwilling to observe what's being presented. Just like any other case in a debate between FE and RE, all you people do is snub out logic and honest opposition during debate. So if you don't have time to go over the video then again, go to a different thread that's only text, this guy hasn't done anything wrong by sharing a video. Hell even this video is more credible in explaining and supporting the idea of a round earth than any proof I've seen supporting the FE model.I'm a REer. That doesn't change the fact that this was a ridiculous thread. Dropping a link to a video that'd take multiple hours to respond to and being too lazy to elaborate on even one argument is not 'honest opposition.' RET has a strong position, no question, it can be defended without resorting to tired old repetition and absurdly long videos that you know won't get a response.
I'm pretty sure there won't be much new information because there very rarely is. I've been on this site for a while, there are only a few arguments actually used, and which are used by newcomers and veteran members alike.
What about direct measurement of the earth's curvature using simple instruments? I don't recall seeing that covered anywhere else.It depends. The underlying principle of the argument is definitely pretty common: it's not necessarily measured in detail, but it could be. Similar idea to things vanishing bottom-up over the horizon, which certainly requires simpler instruments.
To save you from having to abandon your maths research, I'll see if I can summarize the method used.Depends what you mean by vertical angle. Generally that'd be calculated with respect to the Earth, in which case you'd get the same at either point, so I'm assuming it can't be that. If it's with respect to the Sun or something, then I have seen that before: a few people have used it to address the application of Eratosphenes in the FAQ pointing out that one consequence is that the distance to the Sun calculated from a flat plane varies wildly.
You choose two points a known distance apart, in this case he used two mile posts on a north south highway.
You establish a line of sight between two markers at position A and B, you then measure from that established sight line the angle to vertical, ( the zenith angle ), you then go to the other end of the sight line and measure from that same line to the vertical again, the difference between the zenith angles at the two points is a direct measurement of curvature. In the video he measured about one arc minute per mile.
So the only equipment needed is a means of accurately establishing vertical, usually a plumb bob, a means of measuring vertical angles to within a few arc seconds, in this case a theodolite.
What about direct measurement of the earth's curvature using simple instruments? I don't recall seeing that covered anywhere else.It depends. The underlying principle of the argument is definitely pretty common: it's not necessarily measured in detail, but it could be. Similar idea to things vanishing bottom-up over the horizon, which certainly requires simpler instruments.
Even so, that specific argument takes maybe a couple of minutes of a 45 minute video. Hardly worth linking the whole thing.QuoteTo save you from having to abandon your maths research, I'll see if I can summarize the method used.Depends what you mean by vertical angle. Generally that'd be calculated with respect to the Earth, in which case you'd get the same at either point, so I'm assuming it can't be that. If it's with respect to the Sun or something, then I have seen that before: a few people have used it to address the application of Eratosphenes in the FAQ pointing out that one consequence is that the distance to the Sun calculated from a flat plane varies wildly.
You choose two points a known distance apart, in this case he used two mile posts on a north south highway.
You establish a line of sight between two markers at position A and B, you then measure from that established sight line the angle to vertical, ( the zenith angle ), you then go to the other end of the sight line and measure from that same line to the vertical again, the difference between the zenith angles at the two points is a direct measurement of curvature. In the video he measured about one arc minute per mile.
So the only equipment needed is a means of accurately establishing vertical, usually a plumb bob, a means of measuring vertical angles to within a few arc seconds, in this case a theodolite.
The angle between the sight line and the plumb line. Nothing to do with the sun. ( or the intervening terrain for that matter ) Effectively it measures directly the curvature with reference only to the differences in the inclination of a plumb line at two separated points. I'm surprised you didn't understand that right off.Ah, right, so it's measuring with respect to a vertical line at another point, to gauge how much said point's shifted. That does seem to pretty much be the same principle as the sinking ship illusion, or buildings on the horizon. A handwaved mention of bendy light and you've got untrustworthy measurements, and the conclusions are moot for any FEer.
The angle between the sight line and the plumb line. Nothing to do with the sun. ( or the intervening terrain for that matter ) Effectively it measures directly the curvature with reference only to the differences in the inclination of a plumb line at two separated points. I'm surprised you didn't understand that right off.Ah, right, so it's measuring with respect to a vertical line at another point, to gauge how much said point's shifted. That does seem to pretty much be the same principle as the sinking ship illusion, or buildings on the horizon. A handwaved mention of bendy light and you've got untrustworthy measurements, and the conclusions are moot for any FEer.
In my defence, I had only just woken up when I made that last post.
No, nothing remotely similar to the sinking ship, first off how would you measure the earth's radius by observing a ship going over the horizon? You would never be sure what refractive effects to allow for, and the flat earthers would revert to the perspective vanishing and waves blocking distant objects. Similarily for buildings on the horizon.It's the same basic principle, just less built for exact measurements. If there's a response to one, there'll be a response to the other, generally, once you get past the waves argument.
Bendy light isn't going to help explain how plumb lines are measurably inclined over distances as short as a mile. The equipment required to measure the radius of the earth is simple and the method basic.Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
I don't expect any flat earthers to respond, nothing they could say anyway.
No, nothing remotely similar to the sinking ship, first off how would you measure the earth's radius by observing a ship going over the horizon? You would never be sure what refractive effects to allow for, and the flat earthers would revert to the perspective vanishing and waves blocking distant objects. Similarily for buildings on the horizon.It's the same basic principle, just less built for exact measurements. If there's a response to one, there'll be a response to the other, generally, once you get past the waves argument.QuoteBendy light isn't going to help explain how plumb lines are measurably inclined over distances as short as a mile. The equipment required to measure the radius of the earth is simple and the method basic.Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
I don't expect any flat earthers to respond, nothing they could say anyway.
If you don't expect FEers to respond, not much point in posting. Personally I think it's interesting to try and figure out what they'd come up with, or trying to understand what they do say (when they pop up).
6:30The ultimate dishonesty would be for a Geodetic Survey to pretend he thought the earth is flat.
"[...] here are some mathematicians doing some type of celestial observation. And what are they doing here? Conspiring to create a fake round earth..."
That's his ideological bias. This video can't be serious.
One can't analyse a subject by means of irony and pretend he's gonna look both sides equally.
No, nothing remotely similar to the sinking ship, first off how would you measure the earth's radius by observing a ship going over the horizon? You would never be sure what refractive effects to allow for, and the flat earthers would revert to the perspective vanishing and waves blocking distant objects. Similarily for buildings on the horizon.It's the same basic principle, just less built for exact measurements. If there's a response to one, there'll be a response to the other, generally, once you get past the waves argument.QuoteBendy light isn't going to help explain how plumb lines are measurably inclined over distances as short as a mile. The equipment required to measure the radius of the earth is simple and the method basic.Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
I don't expect any flat earthers to respond, nothing they could say anyway.
If you don't expect FEers to respond, not much point in posting. Personally I think it's interesting to try and figure out what they'd come up with, or trying to understand what they do say (when they pop up).
You just keep misunderstanding the method, and complaining about there being no point to posting..
So, once more, it's nothing even remotely like a ship disappearing over the horizon. The method described can be scaled to smaller distances down to a few meters if you have sufficiently accurate levels, like a Talyval, so the bendy light argument can't be used.
The method is easily reproduced anywhere on the planet with just a plumb bob, a sighting device of some sort, and an instrument that can measure vertical angles to within a few arc seconds.
I don't expect flat earthers to answer, because there is no basis on which to refute the measurement. That makes it all the more informative to post, not less.
No, nothing remotely similar to the sinking ship, first off how would you measure the earth's radius by observing a ship going over the horizon? You would never be sure what refractive effects to allow for, and the flat earthers would revert to the perspective vanishing and waves blocking distant objects. Similarily for buildings on the horizon.It's the same basic principle, just less built for exact measurements. If there's a response to one, there'll be a response to the other, generally, once you get past the waves argument.QuoteBendy light isn't going to help explain how plumb lines are measurably inclined over distances as short as a mile. The equipment required to measure the radius of the earth is simple and the method basic.Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
I don't expect any flat earthers to respond, nothing they could say anyway.
If you don't expect FEers to respond, not much point in posting. Personally I think it's interesting to try and figure out what they'd come up with, or trying to understand what they do say (when they pop up).
You just keep misunderstanding the method, and complaining about there being no point to posting..
So, once more, it's nothing even remotely like a ship disappearing over the horizon. The method described can be scaled to smaller distances down to a few meters if you have sufficiently accurate levels, like a Talyval, so the bendy light argument can't be used.
The method is easily reproduced anywhere on the planet with just a plumb bob, a sighting device of some sort, and an instrument that can measure vertical angles to within a few arc seconds.
I don't expect flat earthers to answer, because there is no basis on which to refute the measurement. That makes it all the more informative to post, not less.
Depends on which bendy light option's used. Though I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding something because I have no idea how a few metres could be used to reliably measure curvature: you'd just get the behaviour of the local vicinity. Could get flat or even concave that way: I'm assuming you'll be measuring the direction of the force of gravity, but on such a small scale it'd likely be just as affected by the local masses.
You need a certain scale in order to have the experiment be reliable. And regardless, there's no reason bendy light won't work on a small scale under some models, it'd just have a much smaller effect. But after all, the consequences of that are what we'd expect under either model.
Literally the only difference you've given between this and the horizon ship is that this experiment gives better numbers. I've not contested that, but that's only a small change. It's not the exact same, but generally you can split arguments up into set categories. Directly detecting curvature along a 2-D plane is one such category: it's what you're doing with the plumb line and observation points, and it's what you do with the sinking ship.
It's fairly clear that precisely the same things are at play: the varying directions of 'down' depending on where you are on the Earth's surface.
Ok, let's try and keep it simple.
The sinking ship observation is open to being refuted, by several counter arguments, the perspective argument, the bendy light argument, the wave obscuration argument. and so on. We have all seen them many times.
This direct measurement surveying method, is immune to all those counter attacks.
6:30The ultimate dishonesty would be for a Geodetic Survey to pretend he thought the earth is flat.
"[...] here are some mathematicians doing some type of celestial observation. And what are they doing here? Conspiring to create a fake round earth..."
That's his ideological bias. This video can't be serious.
One can't analyse a subject by means of irony and pretend he's gonna look both sides equally.
When you have spent your working life making measurements that simply will NOT fit on a plane surface you could never honestly believe the earth is flat!
The video is very serious. There is simply no flat earth map which shows the shapes and sizes of continents correctly!
We accept that flat maps of the globe MUST have distortion of some sort, but if there earth were flat, no projections would be needed and all maps should have the correct shapes and all dimensions to the same scale.I challenge you to show me a flat earth map without obvious distortion of the shapes of many continents!
I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.
We can't win. Flat Earthers seem down on all scientists, now you won't accept the measurements of a professional geodetic-surveyor because he is NOT a scientist!The video is very serious. There is simply no flat earth map which shows the shapes and sizes of continents correctly!
We accept that flat maps of the globe MUST have distortion of some sort, but if there earth were flat, no projections would be needed and all maps should have the correct shapes and all dimensions to the same scale.I challenge you to show me a flat earth map without obvious distortion of the shapes of many continents!
Didn't follow your argument. You're saying that his experience alone already answers the question beforehand?
I think it is not true. Experience is baggage from the past and should be put aside when you're trying to analyse something new.
If you are approaching something new with the spirit of putting your knowledge on a pedestal, regardless what the subject is,
you are gonna to reach the same old conclusions as ever. So why bother anyway? And that can be seen in his behavior from start to end, always employing some sarcastic sayings which already express his conclusions, no matter what he's saying.
I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.
So I find very bizarre that you actually are looking into his arguments and really considering a few points.
He is no scientist. Just an old professional that can't learn anymore.
I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.
Ok, so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself, that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.
I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need. But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so, you can find out for yourself.
You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.
We can't win. Flat Earthers seem down on all scientists, now you won't accept the measurements of a professional geodetic-surveyor because he is NOT a scientist!The video is very serious. There is simply no flat earth map which shows the shapes and sizes of continents correctly!
We accept that flat maps of the globe MUST have distortion of some sort, but if there earth were flat, no projections would be needed and all maps should have the correct shapes and all dimensions to the same scale.I challenge you to show me a flat earth map without obvious distortion of the shapes of many continents!
Didn't follow your argument. You're saying that his experience alone already answers the question beforehand?
I think it is not true. Experience is baggage from the past and should be put aside when you're trying to analyse something new.
If you are approaching something new with the spirit of putting your knowledge on a pedestal, regardless what the subject is,
you are gonna to reach the same old conclusions as ever. So why bother anyway? And that can be seen in his behavior from start to end, always employing some sarcastic sayings which already express his conclusions, no matter what he's saying.
I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.
So I find very bizarre that you actually are looking into his arguments and really considering a few points.
He is no scientist. Just an old professional that can't learn anymore.
But, my whole point has been that geodetic-surveyors do not set out to prove the earth a Globe. There task is simply to accurately measure the sizes and shapes of countries and continents. Part of that involves measurement of heights and verticals.
These measurements are enough to find the sizes of degrees of longitude at various latitudes. These figures prove that the earth cannot be flat.
I have done approximate measurements in a few places in Australia and the distance for each degree of longitude fits the Globe and is a long way from the distance we find on the "accepted flat earth map".
I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.
Ok, so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself, that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.
I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need. But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so, you can find out for yourself.
You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.
You need to read what I'm writing instead of talking as a parrot. I'm putting into perspective you can't take into account evidence from someone with a strong ideological bias favoring just one side of the coin.
Btw why are you assuming that I want to prove Earth is round? You fail to realize that your assumptions are founded on 'scientists' like the one from the video. :'(
I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.
Ok, so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself, that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.
I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need. But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so, you can find out for yourself.
You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.
You need to read what I'm writing instead of talking as a parrot. I'm putting into perspective you can't take into account evidence from someone with a strong ideological bias favoring just one side of the coin.
Btw why are you assuming that I want to prove Earth is round? You fail to realize that your assumptions are founded on 'scientists' like the one from the video. :'(
It's you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension. The shape of the earth is not an ideological question, it's a question of fact, not opinion.
Anyway, you missed the essential point, no extra assumptions are required. Ruler, square and plumb is all you need, But given your other illiterate garble, I can't say I'm surprised you don't understand.
I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.
Ok, so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself, that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.
I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need. But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so, you can find out for yourself.
You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.
You need to read what I'm writing instead of talking as a parrot. I'm putting into perspective you can't take into account evidence from someone with a strong ideological bias favoring just one side of the coin.
Btw why are you assuming that I want to prove Earth is round? You fail to realize that your assumptions are founded on 'scientists' like the one from the video. :'(
It's you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension. The shape of the earth is not an ideological question, it's a question of fact, not opinion.
Anyway, you missed the essential point, no extra assumptions are required. Ruler, square and plumb is all you need, But given your other illiterate garble, I can't say I'm surprised you don't understand.
You can say that the shape of the earth is not only an ideological question. I agree with that.
Did you mean that or you still think there is no ideology behind it? :-[
Douglass Adams saw the future when he wrote about the labour saving robot, the electric monk. The electric monk would save you from having to believe in things, by doing the believing for you.
This forum is the prototype electric monk.
I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.
Ok, so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself, that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.
I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need. But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so, you can find out for yourself.
You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.
You need to read what I'm writing instead of talking as a parrot. I'm putting into perspective you can't take into account evidence from someone with a strong ideological bias favoring just one side of the coin.
Btw why are you assuming that I want to prove Earth is round? You fail to realize that your assumptions are founded on 'scientists' like the one from the video. :'(
It's you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension. The shape of the earth is not an ideological question, it's a question of fact, not opinion.
Anyway, you missed the essential point, no extra assumptions are required. Ruler, square and plumb is all you need, But given your other illiterate garble, I can't say I'm surprised you don't understand.
You can say that the shape of the earth is not only an ideological question. I agree with that.
Did you mean that or you still think there is no ideology behind it? :-[
The shape of the earth has nothing whatever to do with ideology, it is a easily observed and measurable physical fact, like the color of the sky, or how tall you are, you can choose to believe the sky is bright pink if you like, and that you are 15 ft tall, however that won't change reality.
Douglass Adams saw the future when he wrote about the labour saving robot, the electric monk. The electric monk would save you from having to believe in things, by doing the believing for you.
This forum is the prototype electric monk.