Proof of FE

Did I say that? No. I mean to say that mathematically speaking, we cannot create something so fine and infintesimal to measure the small degree of vector deviation between two buildings because of the massive size of the planet versus the mediocre size of a house. Mathematically speaking, NOTHING we do will be "the same vector."

Did I say that? No. I mean to say that mathematically speaking, we cannot create something so fine and infintesimal to measure the small degree of vector deviation between two buildings because of the massive size of the planet versus the mediocre size of a house. Mathematically speaking, NOTHING we do will be "the same vector."

If the earth is curved, than even the distance to the next home could not be leveled to the same vector. Yet in some places in the world, this is a traditional practice.

What's this "vector" thing you guys are talking about? Are you referring to a mathematical vector?

Yet, you fail to note what i had posted:

THE MEASURING DEVICES USED IN BUILDING ARE NOT PRECISE, UNLIKE MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS. They're not going to go out to 10 decimal places. This means that, on a perfectly flat stretch of earth (which doesn't occur anyway, note hills, mountains, etc.), the earth's curvature is so massive and so gradual that it exceeds the accuracy of our instruments.

Yet, you fail to note what i had posted:

THE MEASURING DEVICES USED IN BUILDING ARE NOT PRECISE, UNLIKE MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS. They're not going to go out to 10 decimal places. This means that, on a perfectly flat stretch of earth (which doesn't occur anyway, note hills, mountains, etc.), the earth's curvature is so massive and so gradual that it exceeds the accuracy of our instruments.

So are you saying, because we cannot measure it accureately (something most RE'ers here will disagree with) the whole cureveature thing is moot?

I'm saying this--

The instruments that we use to measure for construction sites are not precise enough to reveal a significant change from one house to the next. I said nothing about the earth's curvature.

FURTHERMORE, when houses such as you have described are build, House A is used as the measurment for house B is used for the measurment for house C is used for the measurement of house D. This means any error between A and B is amplified between B and C, in addition to any error that might have already occured there.

The earth is flat because my kitchen floor is flat.  Bump that thread, it was a winner. 

1: Person A can have his home leveled parrallel to the earth
2: Person A's neighbor can level his home using the same vector
3: There exists a person in France
4: There exists a person in Romania
5: There exists an urban path between the person in France and the person in Romania
6: Each building on this path can be leveled using its neighbors vector
7: Therefore the path between France and Romania is flat
8: If the earth is round its curvature would be noticeable from France to Romania
9: Therefore the world is not round, but is flat at least where an urban path exists

1.the concrete bases aren't completely level with the earth, otherwise your house will have a slight curve.
2. once again, concrete bases.
3.he most likely has parents.
4.he probably hasn't died yet.
5.the path is curved. or, like 1/2, concrete bases.
6. must I repeat myself?
7.it's either curved or...concrete bases.
8.yes...you can't see Romania from France.
9.this makes the least sense. you're saying that in some spots it's flat and in others it's round. and guess what made it flat? concrete.....bases.

Don't forget as well that the Alps are between Romania and France. it's a pain to make equivalent vectors through some of the tallest mountains in the world.

The earth is flat because my kitchen floor is flat.  Bump that thread, it was a winner. 

This is that thread.

Exactly

Here's a better experiment, one that actually uses scientific method rather than "A is true, therefore A must be true" logic.

Materials:
A high powered laser
A mirror

Perform at night (to ensure the laser doesn't get "lost" amidst all the sunlight).
Perform over the ocean (if possible), so as to provide a "flat" surface

1) Select an arbitrary altitude*
2) Shine a laser from a point above the north pole at exactly that altitude
3) Set up a receiver 3,000 miles distant, and once more at that altitude.
4) Shine the laser at the receiver "parallel" to the earth.
5) If the laser does not strike the receiver at precisely the same altitude (with tolerances for inaccuracies in measurement), then the earth is not flat.
6) If by some miracle the laser does strike the receiver within the range of tolerance, the world is then flat.

*Ideally the experiment would be run at 0ft, but as a rock might block the laser, higher altitudes might be needed to ensure that the laser does not get blocked by any object that may obstruct it's path.

Note: For a "proof" to have any real logical basis, it can make no arbitrary assumptions.  Your "proof" assumes that all of it's statements are true, which is what is being contended.  Prove that you can draw a perfect mathematical vector - using only current technology and not hypothetical measurements - between a series of structures, or your "proof" is nonsense.

Here's a better experiment, one that actually uses scientific method rather than "A is true, therefore A must be true" logic.

Materials:
A high powered laser
A mirror

Perform at night (to ensure the laser doesn't get "lost" amidst all the sunlight).
Perform over the ocean (if possible), so as to provide a "flat" surface

1) Select an arbitrary altitude*
2) Shine a laser from a point above the north pole at exactly that altitude
3) Set up a receiver 3,000 miles distant, and once more at that altitude.
4) Shine the laser at the receiver "parallel" to the earth.
5) If the laser does not strike the receiver at precisely the same altitude (with tolerances for inaccuracies in measurement), then the earth is not flat.
6) If by some miracle the laser does strike the receiver within the range of tolerance, the world is then flat.

*Ideally the experiment would be run at 0ft, but as a rock might block the laser, higher altitudes might be needed to ensure that the laser does not get blocked by any object that may obstruct it's path.

Note: For a "proof" to have any real logical basis, it can make no arbitrary assumptions.  Your "proof" assumes that all of it's statements are true, which is what is being contended.  Prove that you can draw a perfect mathematical vector - using only current technology and not hypothetical measurements - between a series of structures, or your "proof" is nonsense.

The RE team has "performed" a close analog of this experiment. The view of Toronto from 50 km away provides the same test. The Team has spent a great deal of time on this one, and it looks really great. Please see Trekky's wonderful post. Also, this experiment is documented as Experiment 0013 in the RE Primer.

The primer is broken. Post the experiment here.

Prove the basis and inductive hypothesis rather than just stating them please.

Prove the basis and inductive hypothesis rather than just stating them please.

You have much to learn. That's all MacKenzie does, and when you ask if anyone has done the experiment themselves, she insults you. Of course, she isn't being serious, but it's always fun to entertain yourself with the possibility of her believing the shit she spews from herpies infested mouth.

Quote from: Username on September 03, 2007, 01:20:08 AM

Prove the basis and inductive hypothesis rather than just stating them please.

You have much to learn. That's all MacKenzie does, and when you ask if anyone has done the experiment themselves, she insults you. Of course, she isn't being serious, but it's always fun to entertain yourself with the possibility of her believing the shit she spews from herpies infested mouth.

narc = MacKenzie = a she?  Whaaaa?

I see I must dumb my proof down.. Commence dumbing:

1: The earth's curve is the total of all of its parts
2: If its parts do not add up to the sum of a complete circle, the earth is not round
3: It has been shown (see above) that there is no curve between france and romania
4: The earth is not round

You have to be an idiot to believe in a round earth...

be an idiot to believe in a round earth? let me ask you, where did you hear this ridiculous load of bullshit? really, how can anyone be this retarded. did you fail science class? were you in 3rd grade and you coulden't understand science you just said "fuck it, I'll just drop out of school"

honestly, are you retarded? that isn't a rhetorical question, are you retarded? cuz a retarded person could tell you that people have gone into outer space and have seen the earth is clearly a sphere.

really, the entire idea of a flat earth and people actually believing this bullshit is mind-boggeling.

really, I had a hard time understanding that people believe that the earth is 6000 years old, but flat? I think I might kill myself cuz people can be so stupid in this world

you only believe the Earth is round because everyone has told you the Earth is round, it's simple brainwashing

you only believe the Earth is round because everyone has told you the Earth is round, it's simple brainwashing

My mind has been washed by my inner daemon, thank you for your cooperation

What cooperation? Are you slow or something?

Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 03, 2007, 01:31:31 AM

Quote from: Username on September 03, 2007, 01:20:08 AM

Prove the basis and inductive hypothesis rather than just stating them please.

You have much to learn. That's all MacKenzie does, and when you ask if anyone has done the experiment themselves, she insults you. Of course, she isn't being serious, but it's always fun to entertain yourself with the possibility of her believing the shit she spews from herpies infested mouth.

narc = MacKenzie = a she?  Whaaaa?

I have no idea what that simian douche-teabag is talking about, but around here, Narcberry is Tom Bishop, and vice versa. This means anything you respond to by them will be a waste of your time, and all the free time Tom has.

My advice? Ignore it, and it will blow its brains out when enough people latch onto the idea.

Midnight, you're the one who found out her name was MacKenzie.

Midnight, you're the one who found out her name was MacKenzie.

And where is your data on this? Produce it, or leave me be.

When you found her Myspace page. Her name was MacKenzie.

When you found her Myspace page. Her name was MacKenzie.

LOL.

That was a hint. Although nonperson can be witty, and sometimes creative, nonperson is not stupid enough to put his real name on there. But I see your point. LOL. Look at his friends list. Tom Bishop awaits.

Oh noes I did it again! :O

I still cannot believe you found out my true identity. Stan is really going to go at me on the roof this week.

Quote from: kasroa on March 25, 2007, 05:14:42 PM

Are you blind? Can you not read a few simpel words on a screen? I'll copy and paste it for you.

Its true I cannot read a few simpel words. How do you spell simpel? That doesn't look right.. Ug, this spelling normally is so simpel but I can't figure it out.. I'll go prove the world is round instead.

First of all simpel is spelled simple, and second of all that does not prove earth is flat. The curvature of the earth is so large you would hardly be able to notice.

Quote from: Smarticus on March 25, 2007, 05:19:04 PM

Quote from: kasroa on March 25, 2007, 05:14:42 PM

Are you blind? Can you not read a few simpel words on a screen? I'll copy and paste it for you.

Its true I cannot read a few simpel words. How do you spell simpel? That doesn't look right.. Ug, this spelling normally is so simpel but I can't figure it out.. I'll go prove the world is round instead.

First of all simpel is spelled simple, and second of all that does not prove earth is flat. The curvature of the earth is so large you would hardly be able to notice.

Oh, it really is spelled 'simple'? Wow, so simpel.