Easy way to prove the earth is indeed flat

Traveling at 22.6 knots is not outrageous considering we are talking about the fastest person in the world.

bendyspace=noneuclidean space. Euclidean space is not bent, any non bent space is Euclidean. So a geometry that is non euclidean is ??.

Strawberries are red. Any non-red fruit is certainly not a strawberry. So a fruit that is red and not a strawberry is ??.
Oh, that's right, a red apple.
Well shit son.
The fact that Euclidean geometries are not bent doesn't mean that all non-bent geometries are Euclidean.

@PizzaPlanet

Do you know what a Euclidean geometry represents? It appears to be a placeholder in your mind which has no actual significance, just something scary to avoid. Like truth.

Do you know what a Euclidean geometry represents?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
You're welcome.

It appears to be a placeholder in your mind which has no actual significance, just something scary to avoid.

I agree, it is an abstract fantasy of no significance to the real world. I'm glad we've established this much. Now, why are you trying to apply something inapplicable to your model?

Like truth.

Incorrect. Fantasy and truth are not much alike.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 26, 2011, 10:37:48 AM

bendyspace=noneuclidean space. Euclidean space is not bent, any non bent space is Euclidean. So a geometry that is non euclidean is ??.

Strawberries are red. Any non-red fruit is certainly not a strawberry. So a fruit that is red and not a strawberry is ??.
Oh, that's right, a red apple.
Well shit son.
The fact that Euclidean geometries are not bent doesn't mean that all non-bent geometries are Euclidean.

name a non-bent non euclidean geometry

did I ever claim that because euclidean space is not bent, that all non bent geometries are euclidean? no. I just gave an iff statement.

*Sigh*
lrn2uniquiness
any geometry that satisfies the postulates of euclidean geometry are euclidean, because all the theorems of euclidean geometry follow the postulates


Any geometry where the fifth postulate ALWAYS holds true is in euclidean space. A geometry is not "bent" if this holds true.
So if it doesn't always hold true, it can be curved. Do you understand now?

Its an axiomatic system, if the axioms hold, its euclidean.

@PizzaPlanet

Do you know what a Euclidean geometry represents? It appears to be a placeholder in your mind which has no actual significance, just something scary to avoid. Like truth.

He clearly doesn't know how geometry works, and is instead trying to use logical fallacies to explain away an airtight axiomatic system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#Axioms

For anyone who doesn't want to go read the axioms, or who has conveniently forgotten how geometry works, this will explain to you why a flat geometry is euclidean.

i dont know why you are using circles to measure a non-circular distance of antartica

and i would like a link to the RE antartica perimeter, becuase i got a way different result

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44740

that says 53,610 km

i dont know why you are using circles to measure a non-circular distance of antartica

and i would like a link to the RE antartica perimeter, becuase i got a way different result

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44740

that says 53,610 km

There is your problem.

@vhu9644:

I refuse to repeat myself.

you have never stated y you use a circle to measure a non-circular object's perimeter

and in RE's world, nasa is mostly dependable

and in RE's world, nasa is mostly dependable

Yep, that's part of the problem.

Traveling at 22.6 knots is not outrageous considering we are talking about the fastest person in the world.

Yes, it is totally outrageous because we're not talking about the fastest person in the world. We're comparing the speed of a long distance, incredibly challenging path (one of the most difficult sailing routes in the world) vs the record speed over any distance under any conditions. It's like comparing the world record 100m sprint to average speed of a mountaineer.

As for the semantic argument over what to call the various geometries used in the initial calculation, you're comparing apples and oranges... which is the entire point of the thread. You'd be using a euclidean geometry for the flat earth and a sperical geometry for the round earth. The point is that these two methods produce wildly different values of the same measurements - hence the argument.

First you say travelling 25 knots is the fastest person in the world, and now you are saying 22.6 knots is? 

Quote from: vhu9644 on February 27, 2011, 11:34:14 PM

and in RE's world, nasa is mostly dependable

Yep, that's part of the problem.

well, he did state the parts a mutually exclusive, so hence, becuase in RE nasa is dependable, i can use nasa's measurements

First you say travelling 25 knots is the fastest person in the world, and now you are saying 22.6 knots is? 

No, I said:

...25 knots, putting him just shy of the world speed record for a solo, monohulled yacht

(emphasis added)

I'm not sure what the actual speed record is... I think it's around 28 knots.

The maths giving his speed at 25 knots was approximate, which you later refined to 22.6. I don't have a problem with this adjustment as 22.6 knots is still blindingly fast for a one man sailboat even in ideal conditions. I don't feel it invalidates my point - that maintaining such a high speed for so long a time under such difficult conditions would be practically impossible.

No rebuttals? Magnificent.

No rebuttals? Magnificent.

well, you got antarctica's mesurement wrong in RE, you have also used incorrect methods to determine the perimeter of antarctica

I'd hardly say NASA is dependable considering their track record of not being able to identify wood from moon rock, the numerous lives lost due to their shoddy math, and the constant mistruthes the spill out even from within the RE model.  They can't even keep track of their own budget!

@vhu9644:

lol

@John Davis

No NASA data was necessary for this thought experiment.

Do not quote something from this thread about NASA posted by a troll (vhu9644) in a feeble attempt to contradict my previous statement.

@vhu9644:

lol

@John Davis

No NASA data was necessary for this thought experiment.

Do not quote something from this thread about NASA posted by a troll (vhu9644) in a feeble attempt to contradict my previous statement.

I'll do as a wish.  However, I was responding to the user vhu9644.  That is all. I have little interest in this thread other than to point out that glaring mistake.

Why does this thread still exist?

I have already demonstrated that it is extremely possible that the faster person in the race sailed around the ice wall in the time that he did.

Why does this thread still exist?

I have already demonstrated that it is extremely possible that the faster person in the race sailed around the ice wall in the time that he did.

Are you suggesting that this thread should be deleted? 

@dimbrit:

Think so?

nah

Think so?

nah

Nope. It's ya.

See? I can make comments that don't go anywhere either.

No rebuttals?

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FLAT EARTH!!!!

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 04, 2011, 08:25:35 AM

Why does this thread still exist?

I have already demonstrated that it is extremely possible that the faster person in the race sailed around the ice wall in the time that he did.

Are you suggesting that this thread should be deleted? 

Pretty much. The OP has already been answered that the circumference of the ring/antartica is not mutually exclusive with a FE.

that was the point?  i thought it was supposed to be an experiment someone has to perform

but, in terms of satelites and information you recieve for them, we use satelite information most of the time.   i normally would trust a satelite for antarctica's perimeter

that was the point?  i thought it was supposed to be an experiment someone has to perform

You got to understand, when people propose an "experiment" they don't actually intend for it to happen. It is just another way people try and say, "I think I found a flaw in your theory!"

i thought the op stated that the distances varied

Quote from: vhu9644 on March 06, 2011, 12:19:39 AM

that was the point?  i thought it was supposed to be an experiment someone has to perform

You got to understand, when people propose an "experiment" they don't actually intend for it to happen. It is just another way people try and say, "I think I found a flaw in your theory!"

In other words, a thought experiment.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 06, 2011, 12:36:08 AM

Quote from: vhu9644 on March 06, 2011, 12:19:39 AM

that was the point?  i thought it was supposed to be an experiment someone has to perform

You got to understand, when people propose an "experiment" they don't actually intend for it to happen. It is just another way people try and say, "I think I found a flaw in your theory!"

In other words, a thought experiment.

Yep.