« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

explain this:

  • 40 Replies
  • 11060 Views
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: explain this:
« Reply #30 on: April 06, 2013, 10:27:21 AM »
Quote from: jroa on April 06, 2013, 07:09:37 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on April 06, 2013, 04:49:43 AM
Quote from: jroa on April 06, 2013, 04:40:22 AM
So, let me get this straight.  If we start at Oahu, Hawaii, go north for a thousand kilometers, turn 90 degrees and head east for a thousand kilometers, and then turn 90 degrees and head south for a thousand kilometers, I will be back at Oahu?

That is not what he wrote. Although what you propose should be possible on a round Earth. Maybe not with the legs of the triangle at only 1000kms in length, but certainly at much longer lengths.

My statement would work on a spherical Earth if the second leg ended up at a place where it made a complete 360 around the Earth.  Otherwise, this theory is full of shit.  Sorry for my language.

Your statement is a bit incoherent. Are you saying you have a problem with spherical geometry?  If so, is your objection based on something more than a belief. Furthermore, why do you seem resistant to an experiment that could falsify a Round Earth?  If I were a Flat Earth proponent, I would be excited.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: explain this:
« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2013, 10:36:22 AM »
Quote from: jroa on April 06, 2013, 07:09:37 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on April 06, 2013, 04:49:43 AM
Quote from: jroa on April 06, 2013, 04:40:22 AM
So, let me get this straight.  If we start at Oahu, Hawaii, go north for a thousand kilometers, turn 90 degrees and head east for a thousand kilometers, and then turn 90 degrees and head south for a thousand kilometers, I will be back at Oahu?

That is not what he wrote. Although what you propose should be possible on a round Earth. Maybe not with the legs of the triangle at only 1000kms in length, but certainly at much longer lengths.

My statement would work on a spherical Earth if the second leg ended up at a place where it made a complete 360 around the Earth.  Otherwise, this theory is full of shit.  Sorry for my language.

Ah, no. For your statement to work, the earth would have to have a circumference of only 4000km. The 90 degree turns only work if each leg is 1/4 of the circumference of the sphere. For the earth, that means 10,000km legs.

Quote from: jroa on April 06, 2013, 05:15:32 AM
INS has a margin of error of 0.6km per hour.

Source?
Logged
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: explain this:
« Reply #32 on: April 06, 2013, 02:00:45 PM »
Quote from: Scintific Method on April 06, 2013, 10:36:22 AM
Quote from: jroa on April 06, 2013, 05:15:32 AM
INS has a margin of error of 0.6km per hour.

Source?

Quote
The inaccuracy of a good-quality navigational system is normally less than 0.6 nautical miles per hour in position and on the order of tenths of a degree per hour in orientation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system#Error
Logged
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: explain this:
« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2013, 02:23:27 PM »
Thanks, I'll have to keep that in mind when suggesting INS in the future.

As for the experiment, you wanted to know how long it would take. This would depend entirely on what type of vehicle you used. A small boat would take many, many  hours, thus allowing for a pretty large cumulative error in the INS. However, an aeroplane could be used, which could complete the experiment in 5 to 6 hours, thus reducing the cumulative error to a point where it would not invalidate the experiment.
Logged
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: explain this:
« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2013, 10:12:29 PM »
Quote from: Scintific Method on April 06, 2013, 02:23:27 PM
Thanks, I'll have to keep that in mind when suggesting INS in the future.

As for the experiment, you wanted to know how long it would take. This would depend entirely on what type of vehicle you used. A small boat would take many, many  hours, thus allowing for a pretty large cumulative error in the INS. However, an aeroplane could be used, which could complete the experiment in 5 to 6 hours, thus reducing the cumulative error to a point where it would not invalidate the experiment.

Yes.  If you have the resources, then it is possible.  However, I do not have the resources, and I believe that you do not either.  So, it is an imaginary experiment that we can not use to prove the shape of the Earth, one way or the other.
Logged
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: explain this:
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2013, 11:01:18 PM »
Yes, the biggest problem with a lot of experiments of this nature is that, with the earth being so big, the experiments have to be big too. Of course, there are smaller scale experiments, such as the Wallace variant of the Bedford Level experiment (more reliable than the Rowbotham variant), that can be done on a very tight budget. This is a subject for another thread however, so I won't go further into it here.
Logged
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: explain this:
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2013, 11:04:56 PM »
I wish you could scale down experiments.

I went to my back yard tonight and made three 90 degree turns. Guess what.  I did not make a triangle. 
Logged
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: explain this:
« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2013, 06:10:50 AM »
Quote from: jroa on April 07, 2013, 11:04:56 PM
I wish you could scale down experiments.

I went to my back yard tonight and made three 90 degree turns. Guess what.  I did not make a triangle.

The local curvature has to more pronounced than your backyard. Take your globe down from your dartboard and try it on that.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

koolkat67

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: explain this:
« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2013, 04:19:43 AM »
Quote from: jroa on April 07, 2013, 11:04:56 PM
I wish you could scale down experiments.

I went to my back yard tonight and made three 90 degree turns. Guess what.  I did not make a triangle.

why do you think making 3 90 degree turns in your flat yard will work?  and how is this scaling down the experiment?  do you have a ball for a yard? lol
Logged
?

JiffyJuff

  • 88
  • +0/-0
Re: explain this:
« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2013, 05:02:44 AM »
Quote from: bluerabidrabbit on March 27, 2013, 10:02:32 PM
and know i have not done this, but even if i had would it matter? would that be enough to actually satisfy you or would you question the reality of my journey? also what if i were to ask you to produce a travelled square with 10000 kilometers along each side of the perimeter.

That's the problem. I'm a RE, but you're basically making a hypothesis instead of an argument. Here's what your argument should be like:

1. Say that what was mentioned is possible.

2. Prove it is possible.

3. Conclude that it is possible.

You haven't done this. While hypothetical situations are fine, you have to give logic based on information everyone agrees on. Not everyone agrees that the earth is round.

What people think is this:
Your logic is wrong, because on a flat plane a triangle must have 180 degrees.

What you think is this:
My logic is right, because on a sphere a triangle doesn't have to have 180 degrees.
Logged
Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2013, 08:24:19 PM
The thing that makes things fall is the weight of the object falling.
Wow.
?

bluerabidrabbit

  • 15
  • +0/-0
Re: explain this:
« Reply #40 on: April 10, 2013, 10:49:12 AM »
I agree with you actually, my hypothesis was not very well thought out because I didn't provide evidence for this. I made my argument very hastily, but it did raise a discussion.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »