Here's one for you FEers

okay, man (or woman) stands on the equator and walks due east (or west) and every now and then he leaves a marker on the ground. after walking for several miles due east he turns around and with a pair of binoculars looks back the way he came at the markers he has left. If the earth really is a flat disc then the markers will not line up however if the earth is a sphere then they will line up (which is what is observed).

The conspiracy no doubt interfered with this experiment.

If you were to do that 10 ft from the north pole, guess what would happen.  Hint: They wont line up on a RE or FE.

If you were to do that 10 ft from the north pole, guess what would happen.  Hint: They wont line up on a RE or FE.

Sir, the OP said at the Equator. At that latitude, in RE they do line up, while in FE they do not.

So we're assuming the land is utterly flat and he positions his markers perfectly and they're not affected by wind, water etc? Oh and that he looks back straight through only one eye?

So we're assuming the land is utterly flat and he positions his markers perfectly and they're not affected by wind, water etc? Oh and that he looks back straight through only one eye?

No. Not one of those assumptions are required. In science, we allow for sources of error and account for them in our observations. Only when the effect should overcome the errors do we make conclusions.

All right then, do the experiment buit the conclusion should be that it was fundamentally flawed to begin with...

All right then, do the experiment buit the conclusion should be that it was fundamentally flawed to begin with...

Would you care to back up your claim that it is fundamentally flawed? Remember that we're accounting for the errors. Oh, and when you're done with that please show us your experiments that support your claim and how you accounted for error, please.

Sorry, what I mean to say is that the experiment is flawed at the moment, to make this accurate the ground should be confirmed to be flat (to a given margin of error) and the path marked out with heavy markers as not to be moved and laid according to an accurate compass' definition of due east, the instrument of measurement should also not be a pair of binoculars but something more accurate, such as a tripod-mounted telescope/level/theodalite but none of these instruments will be very accurate over a length of miles

i have something for the FE believers , i just got it after 5 min in this forum ,its HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

i have something for the FE believers , i just got it after 5 min in this forum ,its HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

wow. I feel so enlightened...

Anyway, back to the experiment...

Sorry, what I mean to say is that the experiment is flawed at the moment, to make this accurate the ground should be confirmed to be flat (to a given margin of error) and the path marked out with heavy markers as not to be moved and laid according to an accurate compass' definition of due east, the instrument of measurement should also not be a pair of binoculars but something more accurate, such as a tripod-mounted telescope/level/theodalite but none of these instruments will be very accurate over a length of miles

Good work. Gold star. You're quite the asset for our debates. Thank you.

To be fair, I'm not going to perform this experiment. It's just too costly for me. I'm too ill to travel that far.

But I'm not a troll. I'm working very hard to set up experiments that many of us can do for ourselves. My major effort right now is to acquire a good telescope that you, or anyone, can control over the Internet, take still photographs and make short videos.  I figure this way people can see for themselves the many tests of RE predictions, like the northern polar rotation of the sky. (And as an aside to TheEngineer, it's at BOTH poles!) Imagine being able to watch a satellite pass overhead at your location while at the same time watching it pass overhead at my location using your Internet browser. Imagine being able to locate planets and see their satellites in many cases. Imagine being able to view transits against the Sun. Imagine being able to see shadows cast on the Moon in different directions at different phases. I'll even invite those you wish to come over to my place and see live through the telescope. Now I'm bidding on the Meade LX200 on eBay as we speak. I lost out on an auction 13 hours ago by just $200. I'm winning an auction right now that ends in two days. Please know that I'm working very hard to help everyone make the best choice between FE and RE and that I'm willing to spend both effort and money to help.

Wow, that's more than I'd be willing to spend for FES. next time I;m out doing some field work, I'll see what results I get from a couple of FE experiments with some proper surveying equipment.

Sir, the OP said at the Equator. At that latitude, in RE they do line up, while in FE they do not.

Crap! Missed that, thanks.

Besides, you know how the conspiracy messes things up.

fe'ers would say that no one has ever done that.  Or they would ignore this thread, one of the two. 

okay, man (or woman) stands on the equator and walks due east (or west) and every now and then he leaves a marker on the ground. after walking for several miles due east he turns around and with a pair of binoculars looks back the way he came at the markers he has left. If the earth really is a flat disc then the markers will not line up however if the earth is a sphere then they will line up (which is what is observed).

What your doing zeromatrix is showing that the Earth is spherical.
For instance you have 3 points all equidistant from each other on the Equator ,This is the greatest size circle you can draw on a sphere and in math its called a great circle.
In FE theory the shortest distance from one point to another is described by an isosceles triangle of 180°
The shortest distance on a sphere is also an isosceles triangle but in spherical geometry the sum of the angles of a spherical triangle is between pi radians and 3 pi radians so at a great circle you get a triangle of 540° , that is why the shortest distance along the equator is 180°  or due East / West.
FE seems to say to travel the shortest distance, you (and everyone else) accidentally follow a curved route and take a longer path.
Hope this helps

Quote from: zeromatrix on May 29, 2007, 04:47:07 AM

okay, man (or woman) stands on the equator and walks due east (or west) and every now and then he leaves a marker on the ground. after walking for several miles due east he turns around and with a pair of binoculars looks back the way he came at the markers he has left. If the earth really is a flat disc then the markers will not line up however if the earth is a sphere then they will line up (which is what is observed).

What your doing zeromatrix is showing that the Earth is spherical.
For instance you have 3 points all equidistant from each other on the Equator ,This is the greatest size circle you can draw on a sphere and in math its called a great circle.
In FE theory the shortest distance from one point to another is described by an isosceles triangle of 180°
The shortest distance on a sphere is also an isosceles triangle but in spherical geometry the sum of the angles of a spherical triangle is between pi radians and 3 pi radians so at a great circle you get a triangle of 540° , that is why the shortest distance along the equator is 180°  or due East / West.
FE seems to say to travel the shortest distance, you (and everyone else) accidentally follow a curved route and take a longer path.
Hope this helps

I read and reread and just can't understand you. Why do need three points and isosceles triangles? Don't two distinct points on a sphere determine exactly one great circle? Please help me in my confusion. Thanks.

>>>I read and reread and just can't understand you. Why do need three points and isosceles triangles? Don't two distinct points on a sphere determine exactly one great circle? Please help me in my confusion. Thanks.<<<


Hey Gulliver,
I just re-read that and it is a big garbled.....sorry (was trying to keep math out of it)
Yes. 2 points can (as can 50) describe a great circle.
I was using an isosceles to describe why on a sphere other points relatve to you on the equator are E-W and why that is the shortest route. FE falls down in that regard.
Also most people are familar with 180° triangles.

Guess what? You have to go in a circle in order to get back where you started, even on the Round Earth Model. Imagine that!

~D-Draw

Guess what? You have to go in a circle in order to get back where you started, even on the Round Earth Model. Imagine that!

~D-Draw

Very clever, but not when
A) traveling in a straight line or
B) taking the shortest route

You really should read all of the post

Um, no.  Explain how you could get back to where you started without travelling in a circle.

Um, no.  Explain how you could get back to where you started without travelling in a circle.

Mmmm
 maybe I should be reading the quotes more carefully.
But in a RE you can return to your starting point by traveling in a straight line (geodesicly curved obviously)
How do you  explain traveling in a straight line on the equator of the FE and ending up in the same place?

You are actually travelling around a circle.  It only appears you're travelling in a straight line.

You are actually travelling around a circle.  It only appears you're travelling in a straight line.

Right. The gyroscopes suddenly malfunction, right?

No.  They behave exactly as they should.  We just don't take into account the non-curvature of the earth when calibrating them.  Or whatever you do with gyroscopes to get them to work properly. 

You are actually travelling around a circle.  It only appears you're travelling in a straight line.

Oh don't be so obtuse,
In reference to the Opening Post you are are traveling in a geodesic straight line ,or to put it more accurately   you do not move off the plane described by the great circle .
Flags plated on the equator in FE will to the observer  appear curving when this is not the case ,what is theory as to why it doesn't seem curved?

I don't understand the question.

No.  They behave exactly as they should.  We just don't take into account the non-curvature of the earth when calibrating them.  Or whatever you do with gyroscopes to get them to work properly. 

I know that you know, but I'm not sure about others reading this reading, particularly in the future. FE fails to explain how a competent navigator using a gryocompass can move along the Equator and not realize that they are constantly turning north. A gyrocompass is aligned once with the North Star, Polaris. No further calibrations are usually needed. All passenger ships, most commercial ships, and many larger personal watercraft use gyrocompasses. Faster vessels, such as larger commercial aircraft use an improved variant to resolve problems with higher speeds. Please reference: Wikipedia entry for Gyrocompass

I don't understand the question.

He just being a troll. Don't worry about it. The answer is FE can't explain it.