The Correct Formula for the Displacement Expected by RE's Curvature

I say it's given by the following:

This equation is both correct and completely useless. Your a' (which I assume is meant as the "a" which is half cut off by the top of your image) is almost impossible to measure. Also, d = sqrt(r² + (a')²) - r is not a simplification of (a')² + r² = (r + d)², it is a rearrangement of it. Furthermore, your derivation includes undefined coordinates.

In summary, all you have achieved is a statement of Pythagoras's Theorem. Please resubmit this when you have produced an original, useful, properly derived equation.

This equation is both correct and completely useless. Your a' (which I assume is meant as the "a" which is half cut off by the top of your image) is almost impossible to measure. Also, d = sqrt(r² + (a')²) - r is not a simplification of (a')² + r² = (r + d)², it is a rearrangement of it. Furthermore, your derivation includes undefined coordinates.

In summary, all you have achieved is a statement of Pythagoras's Theorem. Please resubmit this when you have produced an original, useful, properly derived equation.

Please state the undefined coordinates. Please justify your claim that a' is almost impossible to measure, particularly over several meters as Thork required.

Please state the undefined coordinates.

(0, 0) [sic], (0, r) [sic] and (a', r) [sic].

Please justify your claim that a' is almost impossible to measure, particularly over several meters as Thork required.

Over several metres, the perfectly circular cross-sectional model that you have used cannot be applied due to local irregularities.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 11:55:24 PM

Please state the undefined coordinates.

(0, 0) [sic], (0, r) [sic] and (a', r) [sic].

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 11:55:24 PM

Please justify your claim that a' is almost impossible to measure, particularly over several meters as Thork required.

Over several metres, the perfectly circular cross-sectional model that you have used cannot be applied due to local irregularities.

Any grade school student can determine the meaning of those coordinates.

Saying it, doesn't make it true. Again please justify your claim that the model cannot be applied due to local irregularities.

Quote from: Parsifal on October 16, 2010, 12:01:36 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 11:55:24 PM

Please state the undefined coordinates.

(0, 0) [sic], (0, r) [sic] and (a', r) [sic].

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 11:55:24 PM

Please justify your claim that a' is almost impossible to measure, particularly over several meters as Thork required.

Over several metres, the perfectly circular cross-sectional model that you have used cannot be applied due to local irregularities.

Any grade school student can determine the meaning of those coordinates.

Saying it, doesn't make it true. Again please justify your claim that the model cannot be applied due to local irregularities.

You said that Thork did this equation wrong because he used it as a linear function. Could you explain why it wouldn't be.

Any grade school student can determine the meaning of those coordinates.

Ignoratio elenchi.

Saying it, doesn't make it true. Again please justify your claim that the model cannot be applied due to local irregularities.

Mountains, valleys, trees, rivers and so forth exist. Therefore, the Earth cannot be modelled as having a perfectly circular cross-section on arbitrarily small scales, and certainly not on the scale that you are proposing to model it as such.

You said that Thork did this equation wrong because he used it as a linear function. Could you explain why it wouldn't be.

Thork came up with the correct form of the equation, but then made incorrect assumptions. He assumed in error that the function was linear. Even though he made a function that was non-linear, or non-proportional, he took got answers for other values of x by using proportions.

y = 3x is proportional. If we know that when x = 3 that y = 9, then we can infer with a linear function that for each increase in x, we get another 3 for y. Here x = 4, gives us 9+3 12.

y = 3x^2 is not proportional. x=3 gives 27. x = 4, does not give 30, but rather 48.

Mountains, valleys, trees, rivers and so forth exist. Therefore, the Earth cannot be modelled as having a perfectly circular cross-section on arbitrarily small scales, and certainly not on the scale that you are proposing to model it as such.

I guess you have never seen the sea or lake.

Quote from: Parsifal on October 16, 2010, 07:40:45 AM

Mountains, valleys, trees, rivers and so forth exist. Therefore, the Earth cannot be modelled as having a perfectly circular cross-section on arbitrarily small scales, and certainly not on the scale that you are proposing to model it as such.

I guess you have never seen the sea or lake.

I guess you have never seen a wave.

Quote from: Parsifal on October 16, 2010, 07:40:45 AM

Mountains, valleys, trees, rivers and so forth exist. Therefore, the Earth cannot be modelled as having a perfectly circular cross-section on arbitrarily small scales, and certainly not on the scale that you are proposing to model it as such.

I guess you have never seen the sea or lake.

So you admit that in RET there is curvature to sitting bodies of water? Good to know.

Quote from: zork on October 16, 2010, 07:48:58 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on October 16, 2010, 07:40:45 AM

Mountains, valleys, trees, rivers and so forth exist. Therefore, the Earth cannot be modelled as having a perfectly circular cross-section on arbitrarily small scales, and certainly not on the scale that you are proposing to model it as such.

I guess you have never seen the sea or lake.

So you admit that in RET there is curvature to sitting bodies of water? Good to know.

Englsh is right, whats your point? Is it really a shock that in the RET there is a curvature to bodies of water?

@ClockTower
Was this really worth another thread? Are the 12 pages and counting, of the 'Perfectly flat, flaw-free' glass thread not enough?

And despite all the moaning about numbers, you are still agreeing that there would be some curvature? Which then contradicts the very definition of Perfectly flat, flaw-free glass. So after 12 pages, a second thread and despite me having given you the RE answer twice before in other threads, you are still unable to show how the glass could be flat on a round earth?

I will say this to you one final time.

It is Perfectly Flat Flaw-Free F*****g Glass! Ahhhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhh! AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Define Perfect.
Define Flat.
Define Flaw-Free.

What does this tell you about the glass? Is it curved? Are there any flaws that might allow for it to be curved? What do we know about this glass. Oh yeah, that's right. Its Perfectly flat flaw-free glass.

It isn't marketing hyperbole. It isn't that you can cut into the earth to make the liquid flat or use a level. It isn't because they only make tiny pieces. Its not down to tolerances or any of the other things I have told you a million times. Altogether now ... What is it?

Perfectly Flat Flaw-Free Glass!

@ClockTower
Was this really worth another thread? Are the 12 pages and counting, of the 'Perfectly flat, flaw-free' glass thread not enough?

And despite all the moaning about numbers, you are still agreeing that there would be some curvature? Which then contradicts the very definition of Perfectly flat, flaw-free glass. So after 12 pages, a second thread and despite me having given you the RE answer twice before in other threads, you are still unable to show how the glass could be flat on a round earth?

I will say this to you one final time.

It is Perfectly Flat Flaw-Free F*****g Glass! Ahhhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhh! AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Define Perfect.
Define Flat.
Define Flaw-Free.

What does this tell you about the glass? Is it curved? Are there any flaws that might allow for it to be curved? What do we know about this glass. Oh yeah, that's right. Its Perfectly flat flaw-free glass.

It isn't marketing hyperbole. It isn't that you can cut into the earth to make the liquid flat or use a level. It isn't because they only make tiny pieces. Its not down to tolerances or any of the other things I have told you a million times. Altogether now ... What is it?

Perfectly Flat Flaw-Free Glass!

Nothing is perfect. If Flatularists believe that then they should commit suicide.

@ClockTower
Was this really worth another thread? Are the 12 pages and counting, of the 'Perfectly flat, flaw-free' glass thread not enough?

It isn't marketing hyperbole. It isn't that you can cut into the earth to make the liquid flat or use a level. It isn't because they only make tiny pieces. Its not down to tolerances or any of the other things I have told you a million times. Altogether now ... What is it?

Perfectly Flat Flaw-Free Glass!

Just like Thalidomide was a perfectly safe sedative for pregnant woman?
Just like Smoking was good for you?

Never trust someone trying to sell you something cause what they want is your money.

Berny
Burned by used cars too often

That's it. I give up. Believe whatever you like! I don't care. Be ignorant. The answer is in this very forum TWICE, but none of the REr's can be bothered to lurk for it - most have posted in the very threads I posted the answer in. Prattle on insanely. I'll put the RE answer below again. It won't make any difference. In two days the thread will be necroed by some noob and you'll all have forgotten again.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42907.0
Enjoy. I'll talk to you all again in a few days, when you have totally forgotten all about it. We'll have fun discussing that liquids follow earth's form, we can chat about the maths again, ClockTower can insist it can only be down to marketing or tolerances. Yes I'm a horrible horrible troll, the worst kind. The filthiest, dirtiest, sneaky, low down bridge-dwelling creature on these forums. But damn! Round earthers are really really slow to learn new things.  

It is quick pathetic how they are willing to blindly accept their false beliefs and won't listen to reason. All they do is talk in circles, you explain something to them, and then the next thread they demand you explain it all over again.

I'm at the end of my rope with this ground-hog thread EG. I just can't summon the energy to say "You are wrong", any more. I never ever thought I'd get sick of saying that. Never. See what they have done to me?

@ClockTower
Was this really worth another thread? Are the 12 pages and counting, of the 'Perfectly flat, flaw-free' glass thread not enough?

And despite all the moaning about numbers, you are still agreeing that there would be some curvature? Which then contradicts the very definition of Perfectly flat, flaw-free glass. So after 12 pages, a second thread and despite me having given you the RE answer twice before in other threads, you are still unable to show how the glass could be flat on a round earth?

I will say this to you one final time.

It is Perfectly Flat Flaw-Free F*****g Glass! Ahhhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhh! AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Define Perfect.
Define Flat.
Define Flaw-Free.

What does this tell you about the glass? Is it curved? Are there any flaws that might allow for it to be curved? What do we know about this glass. Oh yeah, that's right. Its Perfectly flat flaw-free glass.

It isn't marketing hyperbole. It isn't that you can cut into the earth to make the liquid flat or use a level. It isn't because they only make tiny pieces. Its not down to tolerances or any of the other things I have told you a million times. Altogether now ... What is it?

Perfectly Flat Flaw-Free Glass!

Please stay on topic. This is about the formula and its correctness. If you want to talk about marketing hype about glass, there's another thread for that.

I'm at the end of my rope with this ground-hog thread EG. I just can't summon the energy to say "You are wrong", any more. I never ever thought I'd get sick of saying that. Never. See what they have done to me?

Maybe you should quit this forum

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 04:50:41 PM

I'm at the end of my rope with this ground-hog thread EG. I just can't summon the energy to say "You are wrong", any more. I never ever thought I'd get sick of saying that. Never. See what they have done to me?

Maybe you should quit this forum

Why? You'll have forgotten all about this tomorrow. What's the difference?

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 16, 2010, 04:52:49 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 04:50:41 PM

I'm at the end of my rope with this ground-hog thread EG. I just can't summon the energy to say "You are wrong", any more. I never ever thought I'd get sick of saying that. Never. See what they have done to me?

Maybe you should quit this forum

Why? You'll have forgotten all about this tomorrow. What's the difference?

Your not here.

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 04:54:19 PM

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 16, 2010, 04:52:49 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 04:50:41 PM

I'm at the end of my rope with this ground-hog thread EG. I just can't summon the energy to say "You are wrong", any more. I never ever thought I'd get sick of saying that. Never. See what they have done to me?

Maybe you should quit this forum

Why? You'll have forgotten all about this tomorrow. What's the difference?

Your not here.

It is 'You're not here'.
I can't leave, not with this much ignorance everywhere. You all need me too badly. Its a moral obligation.

I can't leave, not with this much ignorance everywhere. You all need me too badly. Its a moral obligation.

I too feel sad for them. It does feel like an obligation. 

We should speak to Daniel about starting a RE support group.

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 16, 2010, 04:55:35 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 04:54:19 PM

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 16, 2010, 04:52:49 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 04:50:41 PM

I'm at the end of my rope with this ground-hog thread EG. I just can't summon the energy to say "You are wrong", any more. I never ever thought I'd get sick of saying that. Never. See what they have done to me?

Maybe you should quit this forum

Why? You'll have forgotten all about this tomorrow. What's the difference?

Your not here.

It is 'You're not here'.
I can't leave, not with this much ignorance everywhere. You all need me too badly. Its a moral obligation.

Besides being a self-proclaimed troll, you seem unable to follow your own advice. Now it would be appropriate for you to comment on the topic. Derailing debates is poor form.

I believe that no one has made a significant criticism of the formula, after discount Parsifal's stupid comments.

I believe that no one has made a significant criticism of the formula, after discount Parsifal's stupid comments.

Well I don't want to criticise the formula. I wrote it. Its perfect. Surely criticising it, is your job?

Quote

I believe that no one has made a significant criticism of the formula, after discount Parsifal's stupid comments.

Well I don't want to criticise the formula. I wrote it. Its perfect. Surely criticising it, is your job?

So you agree with the formula then? EG will be so disappointed.

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 06:59:51 PM

Quote

I believe that no one has made a significant criticism of the formula, after discount Parsifal's stupid comments.

Well I don't want to criticise the formula. I wrote it. Its perfect. Surely criticising it, is your job?

So you agree with the formula then? EG will be so disappointed.

I'm not sure why he'd be disappointed? At no point did he disagree with it.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 16, 2010, 07:02:05 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 06:59:51 PM

Quote

I believe that no one has made a significant criticism of the formula, after discount Parsifal's stupid comments.

Well I don't want to criticise the formula. I wrote it. Its perfect. Surely criticising it, is your job?

So you agree with the formula then? EG will be so disappointed.

I'm not sure why he'd be disappointed? At no point did he disagree with it.

Reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42558.msg1073391#msg1073391

2. ClockTower's equations were shown to be wrong on that same page. Do note, just because some posts something against FE, does not mean that it is instantly correct.

Yep, your equations. Not my equations. What you subsequently do with my work, is up to you. But after you butcher it to make it fit your argument, do not then complain about the methodology you had as a starting point.