The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: JerkFace on March 12, 2016, 08:56:31 PM

Title: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 12, 2016, 08:56:31 PM
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://#)

Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Yendor on March 13, 2016, 12:16:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: ER22 on March 13, 2016, 01:53:40 PM
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://#)

Watched the video.
It will be dismissed by the FE crowd.
It's unfortunate that he got sarcastic near the end.
Shoulda stuck to just presenting his measurements and left it at that.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 13, 2016, 04:15:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 13, 2016, 09:09:05 PM
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?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: odvetnik_irsic on March 13, 2016, 11:35:10 PM
I saw the original presentation.  I thought it was an excellent video, clear and simply.  Of course he proved with his own equipment that there was indeed curvature and then debunked other assumptions made by FE'ers in other videos.  It was really helpful that he included the 300 years of Geodetic Surveying experience, which was the basis for creation of the world's maps.  IF any FE'er wants to question this video then they should go out and get certified as a Geodetic Surveyor, test distances themselves and demonstrate that curvature does not exist and then prove why in multiple tests.  Even if you question this video it does not explain the millions of surveyed calculations taken over the past 300 years.  The math works or it does not work, and it appears to work.  Case closed. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Master_Evar on March 13, 2016, 11:51:52 PM
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).
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 14, 2016, 12:02:27 AM
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'd rather you watched it,  he systematically proves the earth is a globe,  with very basic instruments, and explains the principles of geodetic surveying.   

As odvetnik_irsic says,  it's the simplest and clearest video proving the earth is a globe. 

Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 14, 2016, 12:06:44 AM
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 was going to link you to some real surveying data,  then I thought, a better idea would be for you to look up the survey data for your own local area, that will tell you where the reference points are and what the baseline locations are, you can then go to those survey markers and verify the data personally.   

Try to get older surveys,  if you find the more modern ones are GPS based.

Where the distances are less than 3 or 4 km,  then that is regarded as a plane survey, greater than that it is a geodetic survey.

Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Woody on March 14, 2016, 12:23:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Master_Evar on March 14, 2016, 12:54:17 AM
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.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 14, 2016, 02:36:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 14, 2016, 02:48:04 AM
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.   








Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 14, 2016, 02:50:53 AM
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).
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 14, 2016, 03:18:54 AM
Did you watch the video?
No, I have better things to do.
Yet here you are....
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 14, 2016, 03:31:23 AM
Did you watch the video?
No, I have better things to do.
Yet here you are....
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on March 14, 2016, 03:33:03 AM
I know, I'm just messing.

Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 14, 2016, 03:41:30 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 14, 2016, 04:07:12 AM
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.

Except I'm not responding to it, I'm responding to the laziness of expecting people to respond to something you refuse to write out.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on March 14, 2016, 05:45:20 AM
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.
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.

I can't do it now, but I might try to find (or draw - if I'm silly enough) an example.  There were some of India in the video.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: getrealzommb on March 14, 2016, 12:52:15 PM
Professional surveyor makes Good video demonstration, with Clear and easy to understand explainations. Earth is round.  ;D
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Jadyyn on March 14, 2016, 04:14:13 PM
Great video!

I would like to point out one important thing that this video in its way demonstrates. Several months ago, before JRowe had a website for his Dual Earth Theory (sic) - should be Fantasy - he wanted to teach it by PMing him. His justification was that there was a lot of trolling on this site (there is), and that way he could get the point across better for truly interested people. I get it... but... as I pointed out to him, that is also information control and "divide and conquer". If anyone brought up a problem, no one else would see it unless JRowe disseminated it... which leads to this video...

Most people have "specialties" or are experienced in various disciplines. *I* happen to know a thing or two about amateur astronomy (visual, photographic, telescopic - not the theory of the universe/planets stuff). The guy on the video knows geodetic surveying. Other people know mathematics, are pilots or air traffic controllers, etc. and can make comments from what they know (personal experience). From what I see, virtually every discipline has problems with a FE. Personally, I can say that the sky is wrong - astronomically speaking - and CAN NOT be fixed on a FE. It is therefore very important that everyone can see what is wrong from different disciplines.

Bravo Geodetic Surveying! Yet another nail in the FE coffin (the FE coffin is made of ONLY nails - no wood).
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: ER22 on March 14, 2016, 05:15:33 PM
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?

Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 15, 2016, 01:08:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 15, 2016, 02:47:21 AM
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."  lol
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on March 15, 2016, 05:06:47 AM
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."  lol
Didn't think you'd be interested in measurements that prove the shape of the earth!
"The conditions are better for viewing at night." - yes, because a light 30 or so kilometers is easy to find at night and the air is more stable at night. Bit technical for a janitor!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: ER22 on March 15, 2016, 04:53:29 PM
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?


Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Master_Evar on March 16, 2016, 12:35:11 AM
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).
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 02:12:51 AM
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)



http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehuston/124639197/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehuston/124639197/#)

Not only can we see the next tallest building in the Toronto skyline, 298 meters, but also other skycrapers, like the Commerce Court West, 239 meters.

DISTANCE ROCHESTER NY TO TORONTO: 152.5 KM

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=421 (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=421)

CN Tower height = ~520 meters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Toronto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Toronto)

Next tallest building: 298 meters


The tallest building in Rochester measures only 135 meters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Rochester,_New_York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Rochester,_New_York)

View from above of Rochester: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rochester_aerial_aug_17_2007.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rochester_aerial_aug_17_2007.jpg)


CURVATURE FOR THE 152.2 KM DISTANCE: 454 METERS

ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS VIEW, ON A ROUND EARTH; there is no curvature over the lake Ontario, between Rochester and Toronto.

LET US NOW USE THE FORMULA FOR A 135 METER (HIGHEST POSSIBLE IN ROCHESTER) ALTITUDE FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHER:

WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING UNDER 960 METERS, FROM ROCHESTER NY, FROM A HEIGHT OF 135 METERS, OVER THIS DISTANCE!


Let us also include the fact that Rochester is 80 meters above the level of Lake Ontario.

THE VISUAL OBSTACLE WILL MEASURE 756 METERS.

On a round earth, NOTHING could be seen under 756 meters; yet, we see the details that could be viewed only on a flat earth.


CURVATURE

C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians


R = 6378,164 km

s = distance



VISUAL OBSTACLE

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpswhoewt2o.jpg)


BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h2]1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = AE = altitude of observer

Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 16, 2016, 02:38:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 16, 2016, 02:39:22 AM
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?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 16, 2016, 02:43:03 AM
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.

In the video he surveyed the variation in plumb at 1 mile intervals along a straight highway,  measuring verticality accuracy is no different to measuring horizontal accuracy.   Horizontal, level and flat are all different terms.

Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JustPassingThrough on March 16, 2016, 03:18:27 AM
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/1zflzz5.jpg)

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2d1mjix.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 16, 2016, 03:22:34 AM
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away.  Welcome to the world of perspective. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Blue_Moon on March 16, 2016, 03:30:14 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 16, 2016, 03:31:44 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Blue_Moon on March 16, 2016, 03:35:41 AM
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.
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. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 16, 2016, 03:40:28 AM
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
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Blue_Moon on March 16, 2016, 03:44:29 AM
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
Since when has anyone said that??  Perspective decreases with distance; that's a self-evident fact. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on March 16, 2016, 03:48:15 AM
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
Since when has anyone said that??  Perspective decreases with distance; that's a self-evident fact. 

It's in the Q&A forum.  You are welcome to read that forum if you would like to. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JustPassingThrough on March 16, 2016, 03:51:58 AM
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

looking through a telescope at an object far away will not increase the visual angle. it will make the object bigger, but the visual angle will not change. I think that's an aspect of perspective that you need to read up on.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 16, 2016, 05:22:06 AM
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.
Stick to bendy light.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 17, 2016, 04:58:17 AM
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://)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on March 17, 2016, 05:59:32 AM
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?
Teacher, teacher, I know!
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-D
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).
HEIGHT OF EYE
     RANGE TO   HORIZON
FEET
YARDS
MILES
20
10,200
5.1
40
14,400
7.2
60
17,800
8.9
80
20,600
10.3
Figure 5-5: Range – Height Table
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. 
 
::) Do you think those poor sailors got confused when they found that the Navy had lied to them?  ::)

Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 17, 2016, 06:25:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Master_Evar on March 17, 2016, 06:44:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 17, 2016, 07:02:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Uninvited Guest on March 17, 2016, 10:22:24 AM
6:30
"[...] 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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: robintex on March 17, 2016, 11:09:20 AM
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?
Teacher, teacher, I know!
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-D
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).
HEIGHT OF EYE
     RANGE TO   HORIZON
FEET
YARDS
MILES
20
10,200
5.1
40
14,400
7.2
60
17,800
8.9
80
20,600
10.3
Figure 5-5: Range – Height Table
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. 
 
::) Do you think those poor sailors got confused when they found that the Navy had lied to them?  ::)

As an "ET" in the U.S. Navy, I have actually done that.I would go out on deck and observe passing ships, land,etc., and then go up in C.I.C. and check the range on the surface search radar. Those instructors in Boot Camp and ET school hadn't lied to me .......It worked !
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: robintex on March 17, 2016, 11:22:37 AM
I suppose I am guilty of being a member of the Great Round Earth Conspiracy on two counts.

(1) The U.S. Navy- Measuring distance distances to the horizon by eye and ranges by radar.


(2) Amateur Radio Operators - Measuring the distance from the earth to the moon on "Moon Bounce".

LOL !
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Master_Evar on March 17, 2016, 10:47:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 18, 2016, 04:18:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Master_Evar on March 18, 2016, 08:41:13 AM
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.
Fair enough, didn't bother to do those maths.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Juicyblunts2016 on March 20, 2016, 08:13:11 AM
Did you watch the video?
No, I have better things to do.
Yet here you are....
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.
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 20, 2016, 11:19:17 AM
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...
I posted, because there aren't many FEers active on the forum, and I try to save them the trouble of dealing with awful threads like this so people who have actually interesting questions can have their posts addressed. I'd much rather hear a description of how the celestial gears model actually works, or an explanation of eclipses, than hearing the perspective-answer to a ship going over the horizon, or the description of a spotlight Sun, or its orbit, for the umpteenth time.
Threads like this don't achieve anything. The OP likely knows there'll be no response because very few people have time to sit down and watch a 45 minute video, much less write up an intelligible reply, and even if they did I doubt there'd be much covered that hasn't been covered countless times before.

Quote
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.
Sure, FE models are typically weak. That should make it easy for an argument to be made. Instead, we get completely stupid arguments, like referencing something no one wants to watch, or the "But completely unrelated objects are round!" argument that seems like it keeps making the rounds, or people who claim to see curvature from see level.
So, yes, I'm going to speak up when threads like this are made because they don't achieve anything.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 21, 2016, 12:11:08 AM
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. 

To save you from having to abandon your maths research, I'll see if I can summarize the method used. 

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. 

Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 21, 2016, 05:04:58 AM
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.

Quote
To save you from having to abandon your maths research, I'll see if I can summarize the method used. 

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.
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 21, 2016, 05:50:03 AM
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.

Quote
To save you from having to abandon your maths research, I'll see if I can summarize the method used. 

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.
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.

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.


PS. Just for kicks,  you can do the following calculation,   since the measured inclination change was one minute per mile,  that means 60 miles per degree,  since arc length = rΘ   and Θ = π/180 radians, 
So the radius of the earth r = 60*180/π  approx 3500 miles,  not a bad estimate for such a primitive method.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 21, 2016, 11:05:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 21, 2016, 05:01:34 PM
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.   

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.

I don't expect any flat earthers to respond,  nothing they could say anyway.




Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 21, 2016, 05:12:21 PM
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.

Quote
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.

I don't expect any flat earthers to respond,  nothing they could say anyway.
Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
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).
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 21, 2016, 07:23:32 PM
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.

Quote
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.

I don't expect any flat earthers to respond,  nothing they could say anyway.
Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on March 21, 2016, 08:08:48 PM
6:30
"[...] 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.
The ultimate dishonesty would be for a Geodetic Survey to pretend he thought the earth is flat.
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!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 22, 2016, 02:46:24 AM
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.

Quote
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.

I don't expect any flat earthers to respond,  nothing they could say anyway.
Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 22, 2016, 03:41:49 AM
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.

Quote
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.

I don't expect any flat earthers to respond,  nothing they could say anyway.
Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
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.   
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Slemon on March 22, 2016, 04:33:31 AM
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.

Arguments can be refined to do away with certain responses. Once you're no longer worried about waves and distance, that doesn't change the core of the argument.
The bendy light response can still be applied, with sufficient imagination. That's how most FE responses are.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Uninvited Guest on March 22, 2016, 02:19:53 PM
6:30
"[...] 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.
The ultimate dishonesty would be for a Geodetic Survey to pretend he thought the earth is flat.
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!

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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 22, 2016, 06:15:30 PM
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.



Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on March 22, 2016, 10:24:56 PM
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.
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!

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".
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Uninvited Guest on March 23, 2016, 06:33:56 AM
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. :'(
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Uninvited Guest on March 23, 2016, 06:41:03 AM
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.
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!

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".

Who said I'm a flat earther? ???
Bring decent evidence and I may agree with you. One that is not pedantic, sarcastic and that employes irony to prove his point of view.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 23, 2016, 06:54:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Uninvited Guest on March 24, 2016, 08:45:52 AM
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?  :-[
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: JerkFace on March 24, 2016, 07:23:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Blue_Moon on March 24, 2016, 07:34:17 PM

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.

You can read about the Electric Monk here (http://theelectricmonk.com/ElectricMonk.html).  It's quite a good read; thank you Rayzor. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Uninvited Guest on March 28, 2016, 01:27:53 PM
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.

The blue I see is not same blue you see. Blue is just a definition, not a real thing. Plenty of research on that.

If it is not an ideological issue, what are we doing here? Your beliefs are shared by Science. Wheter you are right or wrong about them, it doesn’t matter. The scientific community is an ideological group. Before you start “ohh but the facts!!”, you must realize ideology is not about who is right or wrong. But about who you believe.

You refuse to accept it because you’ve been indoctrinated by the scientific method. Now that you are wise you run around on forums yelling your knowledge for the poor ignorants. You have been good to us, thank you.