Trigonometry of 3000 mile high celestial bodies

Quote from: Theodolite on July 15, 2011, 10:25:18 AM

This has nothing to do with the presence of gravity

Correct. My point is made.

No, I pointed out that your correlation is invalid.   

Quote from: Thork on July 15, 2011, 06:04:38 AM

But thousands and thousands of miles are over a gradient of 1 measly foot. I am not interested in the 2700m of mountain at the source. I am wanting to know what happens to the thousands and thousands of miles of gently meandering Nile.

My point is gravity doesn't exist. So there are no fluctuations. Universal acceleration would make the force pulling the water down uniform and so make even the tiniest gradient the dominant factor, as experienced in the real world.

2 FE wins in one morning. I think I am going to have to go and lie down.

First of all, it is common for a river to have flat spots.  These can be called lakes.   If have a long narrow lake that is the same dimensions as the river that feeds and drains it, then there will be a net in and out flow.  This flow will push water in and drain it out.   

This has nothing to do with the presence of gravity

The nile river drains from a height of 8500' over a distance of 4,100 miles


elevation at khartoum   373m    200km from source

elevation at shendi    356m    around 200km downstream from khartoum

artoli    300m     approx another 200km downstream

ash shallal   294m   approx another 200km downstream

marawi  256m            approx another 200km downstream

dongola  225m           approx 270km downstream

gemai   178m       another 400km downstream

aswan   82m        another 370km

qina      65m          another      270km

mallawi    36m                           340km



This leaves us 36m drop over the final 400km of the river


There are no flat spots

Here is my completed post, it was already being buried in rubbish


I stick to my statement that this moron is no surveyor.  He either lies, or does not understand how to double and triple check his work, exposing his data to massive errors.  His canal measurements theories are flawed

But thousands and thousands of miles are over a gradient of 1 measly foot. I am not interested in the 2700m of mountain at the source. I am wanting to know what happens to the thousands and thousands of miles of gently meandering Nile.

My point is gravity doesn't exist. So there are no fluctuations. Universal acceleration would make the force pulling the water down uniform and so make even the tiniest gradient the dominant factor, as experienced in the real world.

2 FE wins in one morning. I think I am going to have to go and lie down.

A large part of the gently meandering Nile pools into massive lakes the size of Wales. However, the river still flows. Even the smallest gradient will result in a flow as long as the body of water is large enough for its momentum to overcome surface tension. So I dont see how your argument supports UA and not gravity (or static, as you like to call it).

Actually none of the lakes are that flat, you can see from my table that there isnt a single 200km stretch with less than a 1m drop.


MULTI THREAD GEOIDICAL EARTH VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!     FINISH HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Nolhekh on July 14, 2011, 05:34:19 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on July 14, 2011, 05:29:59 PM

Did you understand his whole flipping the lens upside down to correct for distortion thing at all?

Also, barrel and pincushion distortions will not affect a straight line if it passes through the centre of the lens.

Precisely dear Watson!  This is why a straight line observation, that is viewing from Point A straight to Point B,  is a better method of ascertaining curvature or non-curvature with a theodolite.  Rowbotham explains this quite well in ENaG.   

You misunderstand.  A straight line when viewed through a lens will not become curved from a pincushion or barrel distortion, if it passes through the centre of the lens.

We are also ignoring the concept of Quality Control.  There are many types of optical distortion, and none of them are present in lens that are approved for use in theodolites from major manufacturers (which surveyors use)

The level of distortion that would pass undetected through QC is on the order of 0-2 seconds of angle.  These types of distortion are not apparant to the human eye, even through magnification.

Also, the correct device to use for viewing a straight on line of sight is called a telescope.




I will be away for part of the coming week, I was awarded a chain of KFC franchises, I have to travel to Israel to interview some mossad agents who have applied for line cook jobs.

But thousands and thousands of miles are over a gradient of 1 measly foot. I am not interested in the 2700m of mountain at the source. I am wanting to know what happens to the thousands and thousands of miles of gently meandering Nile.

My point is gravity doesn't exist. So there are no fluctuations. Universal acceleration would make the force pulling the water down uniform and so make even the tiniest gradient the dominant factor, as experienced in the real world.

2 FE wins in one morning. I think I am going to have to go and lie down.

And which part of the Nile is, as you say, thousands and thousands of miles over a gradient of one foot? In this map you can see that there are mountains near the Nile almost all through its path.



You can also see the photos in the Wikipedia page, where most show a flowing river.

If you are going to make a claim, make if right. Tell us enough information so we can verify it.

PS.

In this map:



you can clearly see that from Nubia to the delta the river descends 600 feet. And that is over a distance of some 800 nautical miles. That is some two or three orders of magnitude more slope than your claim.

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 08:33:09 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on July 14, 2011, 08:26:07 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 07:06:19 PM

"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."

These two quotes make him incompatible with surveying, shows a complete lack of understanding of how trigonometry works, even how the simple concept of running a roller ruler on a map is vital to a ships navigation


And yes Chuck, we understand that survey instruments have lenses.  And the brain is underneath the skin.....

-So you are saying that curvature of the earth is of ill-consequence with regards to his assessment of the Nile river? 
-Yes indeed they have lenses, however this does nothing to settle the matter of dispute between you and your fellow RE'rs; that is whether curvature in the RE model is so easily seen from the height of a "cliff."   

Curvature of the earth has no bearing on rivers.  You are implying that rivers flow away from the equator?  towards it?   they actual flow down from a higher vertical elevation towards a lower elevation.

There is no dispute, anyone who believes in a RE had a few points (mostly they were repeating "rules of thumb"), but I explained how this isnt a visual test, but a precision engineering survey. I am sure that they, with their open minds, understand now my procedure.

This truly reveals your ignorance with regards to ENaG.  Forgive me for being so blunt.  Rowbotham utilized standing water because it is level.  Any one should be able to understand why he utilized water, because it will level off even if the terrain underneath isn't level.  He then spanned beyond what would be the furthest viewable point in the RE model.  Lo and behold, that object was still viewable even beyond the RE models furthest viewable point.  It would not have been if the earth were a globe which, incidentally, it is not!     

Chucky rocks.

Chucky rocks.

No,  Chucky does not rock, even a bit. The water has to be still, not flowing in a river. And you need a very long distance of calm, non-flowing water, much more than the 6 miles Rowbotham so frequently used in his experiments. With 15 or 20 miles the results are so evident that no refraction effect or "perspective" effect can make the experiment be inconclusive or fail.

Water is not level unless it is not flowing. That should be as simple as it gets, even for Chucky.

That gravitational anomoly map actually shows that gravitational differences happen due to local irregularities. 

That gravitational anomoly map actually shows that gravitational differences happen due to local irregularities.

It also shows that the Universal Accelerator is not possible, good for your model, huh?

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:35:15 AM

That gravitational anomoly map actually shows that gravitational differences happen due to local irregularities.

It also shows that the Universal Accelerator is not possible, good for your model, huh?

I'm not at all sure that it does.

Quote from: General Disarray on July 26, 2011, 08:17:28 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:35:15 AM

That gravitational anomoly map actually shows that gravitational differences happen due to local irregularities.

It also shows that the Universal Accelerator is not possible, good for your model, huh?

I'm not at all sure that it does.

If the force holding us to earth is caused by the earth moving, how come it is of different strengths in different places? Looks like a big nail in the UA coffin to me.

Local variation might be caused by celestial bodies.

Local variation might be caused by celestial bodies.

Of course it can't be - they move, the gravity variations don't.

Local variation might be caused by celestial bodies.

If acceleration were higher at one point than another on a flat earth, we would see that point rise up into the air relative to the other.

This has been brought up before. 

Since most that hold the Cambridge model is true (read: all) believe in a conspiracy, and that data was recorded by satellites, I imagine they will label it suspect data. 

Another possible reason that came up (maybe by me) was that the earth does create a gravitational pull but it has a gravitationally neutral interior / sub-crust.  This way local geographies would still affect the inertial paths of objects.

Lastly, and the least strong of the arguments, is that the heavens are accountable for these differences.

Ah, I wondered what FE did when confronted with uncontradictable evidence. Looks like the answer is either pretend the data isn't real, or make a fudge answer that does nothing but buy time ("the heavens are in some way responsible").

The FE'rs used to attempt to post scientific reasons(more like questions, following the model of most religions whose proofs are usually questions).

How do spacesuits cool themselves for example


I explained how that one works, and no one has presented me with any more reasons why spaceflight is impossible.

The FE'rs used to attempt to post scientific reasons(more like questions, following the model of most religions whose proofs are usually questions).

How do spacesuits cool themselves for example


I explained how that one works, and no one has presented me with any more reasons why spaceflight is impossible.

Don't the FE'ers have access to Google?

Don't the FE'ers have access to Google?

Yes, we do but it is a redundant source here.  The sphereists will do all the heavy lifting.  Everything relevant on Google is mined, copied, and instantly pasted here by globular 'scientists.'

Quote from: The Knowledge on July 27, 2011, 08:38:43 AM

Don't the FE'ers have access to Google?

Yes, we do but it is a redundant source here.  The sphereists will do all the heavy lifting.  Everything relevant on Google is mined, copied, and instantly pasted here by globular 'scientists.'

So you assume that if a roundist hasn't already posted something from Google on how spacesuit cooling works, there can't be anything on Google about it and therefore it doesn't happen. Okaaay... 

Why would I assume that?

Why would I assume that?

Because your post there looks like that's what you assume. Your defence was that the "sphereists" post all the Googled stuff.

In defence of what?  I answered a question, somewhat cynically for sure, but it was merely a reply in kind as I don't think you really believe we don't have access to Google.  Perhaps you do and in that case, I'm apologize  for the tone.

and that data was recorded by satellites

Incorrect. Differences in acceleration have been recorded by other means than satellites, I have recently posted links showing this data.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that says spaceflight is impossible, is the purely hypothetical theory called "Universal Acceleration"

I have a hypothetical theory:

Santa clause pulls the north pole up with his reindeer.  During christmas there is a 1% decrease in the effect of universal acceleration.  There is a 1200 year old document that supports this data:
















Only smart people can read it, if it looks blank to you, then maybe you arent intelligent enough to read it.

How does my theory differ from UA?

Bringing the thread back to the trig of 3000 mile high bodies, why do measurements of the position of the sun and other stars coincide with the predictions made by the RE model?

Is there a FE model to match this accuracy?

Bringing the thread back to the trig of 3000 mile high bodies, why do measurements of the position of the sun and other stars coincide with the predictions made by the RE model?

Is there a FE model to match this accuracy?

Of course there isnt. No FE models match reality.