« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!

  • 73 Replies
  • 36180 Views
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2013, 09:56:38 AM »
Okay, until Ski actually reads the theory he's attempting to use, does anybody have any real responses to this experiment?
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2013, 10:03:10 AM »
You're dismissing the greater part of the chapter and simply acknowledging that objects can become indiscernible due to angular resolution (which everyone already knows). Perhaps you could read the part about how perspective works, and refrain from re-quoting the angular resolution part that noone is talking about specifically except for you...
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2013, 10:29:23 AM »
Quote from: Ski on August 14, 2013, 09:46:50 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on August 13, 2013, 07:45:41 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 13, 2013, 05:03:16 PM
If you had read any of the material provided, you would see that Dr. Rowbotham meets your objection and that art-school perspective is not rooted in reality, but merely approximates it.   :-\

Art school perspective is based on observation. Brunelleschi would trace reflections on mirrors to derive a 2D image of a 3D subject. Rowbotham's perspective is based on wishful thinking and was created to suit his needs.

Brunelleschi used a mirror to demonstrate how closely his painting matched the actual baptistry he painted. It was across a plaza and not near the horizon. If Brunelleschi had actually traced the reflection of a distant object, he may have realized how his take on linear perspective was flawed wherein lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line recede at the same rate.

He did what you describe as well, but he also traced a painting on to a mirror.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28graphical%29
In about 1413 a contemporary of Ghiberti, Filippo Brunelleschi, demonstrated the geometrical method of perspective, used today by artists, by painting the outlines of various Florentine buildings onto a mirror. When the building's outline was continued, he noticed that all of the lines converged on the horizon line.
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.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2013, 10:41:00 AM »
I would love to see a quote that is from something other than wiki.  I am not saying that you're wrong, only that I have never heard this account before.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2013, 10:43:37 AM »
Quote from: Ski on August 14, 2013, 10:41:00 AM
I would love to see a quote that is from something other than wiki.  I am not saying that you're wrong, only that I have never heard this account before.

Fair enough.  I probably will not research that for you.  However, it is something that we could do at home if we had a mind to!
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.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2013, 10:49:56 AM »
And as long as we aren't tracing something extremely distant receding to the horizon it would appear to work...  ;)
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2013, 12:50:49 PM »
Ski, for debating whether or no perspective says what you think it says, go here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59577.0.html#.UgvdZZLU9KI

I see where I was erring--I thought Rowbotham was able to keep a single coherent thought in his works, but that's obviously not the case. His first law of perspective says that the distance of an object's vanishing point is determined by it's size. Only a few paragraphs later he says an the distance of an object's vanishing point is determined by it's distance from eye-line.

At first I was mis-understanding that second part as just a re-statement of the first, but later on he is clearly saying that a 5-square-meter object sitting on the ground will vanish before a 20-centimeter-object suspended 7 meters in the air. That just doesn't happen.

But even if it does it doesn't change the Mt. Adams Experiment. The top of Mt. Adams was 3659 m above my eye-level, meaning it should have measured 1.88 degrees. Even if we take away the part of the mountain that has merged with the horizon, which using Rowbotham's 3000:1 rule would be 33 meters, you're still missing hundreds of meters of mountain.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-113
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2013, 08:29:15 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 14, 2013, 10:41:00 AM
I would love to see a quote that is from something other than wiki.  I am not saying that you're wrong, only that I have never heard this account before.

How's this?  http://www.gallerydiabolus.com/gallery/artist.php?image=1612&id=utisz&page=214
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2013, 10:56:35 PM »
Quote from: markjo on August 14, 2013, 08:29:15 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 14, 2013, 10:41:00 AM
I would love to see a quote that is from something other than wiki.  I am not saying that you're wrong, only that I have never heard this account before.

How's this?  http://www.gallerydiabolus.com/gallery/artist.php?image=1612&id=utisz&page=214

So a blog entry guessing that he may have had a contraption devized to paint a scene "which may or may not have existed."

Again, I'm not saying the tale is untrue. I am simply interested to hear if there are any actual accounts of this.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #39 on: August 14, 2013, 10:58:47 PM »
Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 14, 2013, 12:50:49 PM
I see where I was erring--I thought Rowbotham was able to keep a single coherent thought in his works, but that's obviously not the case.

And I erred when I thought you might have actually read the information we provided to your query without resorting to base falsehood and/or incomprehension.

See how easy it is to be needlessly snitty?   ::)
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #40 on: August 16, 2013, 09:17:28 AM »
Quote from: Ski on August 14, 2013, 10:58:47 PM
Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 14, 2013, 12:50:49 PM
I see where I was erring--I thought Rowbotham was able to keep a single coherent thought in his works, but that's obviously not the case.

And I erred when I thought you might have actually read the information we provided to your query without resorting to base falsehood and/or incomprehension.

See how easy it is to be needlessly snitty?   ::)
There's a thread where I bring out what Rowbotham says. You've not given any reason why I've been interpreting it wrong other than saying "You're doing it wrong." Until you do, would you mind addressing the rest of my post?

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 14, 2013, 12:50:49 PM
The top of Mt. Adams was 3659 m above my eye-level, meaning it should have measured 1.88 degrees. Even if we take away the part of the mountain that has merged with the horizon, which using Rowbotham's 3000:1 rule would be 33 meters, you're still missing hundreds of meters of mountain.
Logged
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2013, 04:41:46 PM »
Bump because FE seems to have forgotten the little problem of actual observation disagreeing with their theory.

From a distance of 114.2 km and elevation of 84 m ASL, I measured a mountain with a summit elevation of 3743 m to have an angular diameter of 1.39 degrees, a staggering .5 degrees off the FE prediction (1.88 degrees) but very close to the RE prediction (1.32 degrees).

Following the math backwards, FE says the mountain has a summit elevation of 2631 m based on these observations. Where have the extra 1112 meters gone?
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2013, 04:50:53 PM »
Did you make that measurement assuming the same vanishing point for the base of the mountain and the peak? You did. And therein lies the flaw, as you've been told repeatedly.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #43 on: August 21, 2013, 04:57:10 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 04:50:53 PM
Did you make that measurement assuming the same vanishing point for the base of the mountain and the peak? You did. And therein lies the flaw, as you've been told repeatedly.
No, actually, I didn't. In fact, I didn't make that measurement on any assumption at all. I simply measured the mountain.

But you're right, I didn't take Rowbotham's Perspective into account for my FE prediction. Here's the updated value:

tan-1((3659-33)/114200) = 1.81 degrees

I'll update the original post as well.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 05:13:19 PM by Alex Tomasovich »
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #44 on: August 23, 2013, 11:45:10 AM »
You've yet to show me any indication that you understand Rowbotham's perspective, so forgive my skepticism.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #45 on: August 23, 2013, 12:19:28 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 23, 2013, 11:45:10 AM
You've yet to show me any indication that you understand Rowbotham's perspective, so forgive my skepticism.
And you've yet to show me what I'm not understanding about Rowbotham's perspective. Please reply to this post and tell me what I'm not getting.
Logged
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2013, 03:01:48 PM »
It seems that Ski's objections always amount to, "oh you just don't get it".
« Last Edit: August 31, 2013, 08:34:00 AM by rottingroom »
Logged
?

Art

  • 133
  • +0/-0
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #47 on: August 28, 2013, 06:49:14 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 13, 2013, 04:05:20 PM
Tom is exactly correct that you are misinterpreting perspective. The experiment would prove nothing to me. I have no doubt that the mountains' height as calculated by simple art-school perspective will differ.

If I can climb a significant mountain, and measure 3D and 2D distance on the way,
and receive elevation with GPS, and also read elevation from topographic map data
given the 2D coordinates from GPS (independently determining altitude).
3D distance using Pythagoras' Theorem to apply the vertical difference to a 2D distance measurement.

What COULD be done to prove something to you with those tools?
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">AVEC GPS - Logan's Ridge, Sth Ridge.

I am doing another climb soon, and can measure anything that I find a reason to measure.

I have heard people on this forum claiming to be pilots.
It happens I can also fly a single engine light aircraft (Piper Tomahawk) over the same area.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to fly 100km from a given point that I don't choose,
to any point that I do  choose, and one further extend of that ends up here.
The air base is about 70km away from this area.

Obviously I cannot fly across continents, or from one to another.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 09:17:38 PM by Art »
Logged
RET:0 - FET:0
?

11cookeaw1

Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #48 on: October 19, 2013, 08:43:15 AM »
So when challenged for evidence Ski runs away.
Logged
?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #49 on: October 19, 2013, 09:25:53 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 02, 2013, 07:14:17 PM
We already know about the Sinking Ship Effect.

The vanishing perspective theory is a consequence of the limitations of our optical acuity (diameter of the field of vision), if you read the article carefully, Tom. Hence, if you employ the use of a magnification device, the vanished perspective should be restored, since you have now increased the effective visual distance needed to achieve 1 arc minute.

This of course does not happen, as when you look at a ship through binoculars, the hull is still gone: the entire image is NOT restored, in proportion to its vanished perspective (and yes I have done this, many times).

FET requires another explanation, perhaps in a bending light. Vanishing perspective theory sadly cannot account for our everyday observations, even rather basic ones.

You should think about these thing carefully, before you simply post a link. These obvious discrepancies, when go un-addressed, make us look bad. 

Logged
*

mohamed

  • 182
  • +0/-0
  • "Each spring, the Sun sets in a boiling spring"
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #50 on: October 21, 2013, 02:38:01 PM »
Quote from: darknavyseal on July 16, 2013, 11:10:55 PM
Are you actually experimenting? Data? What is this? Are you lost? This is the Flat Earth Society, you utterly foolish noob! Do you not know that data is not welcome here?

Be GONE!!! >o<

Actually there are more REs in this WEB site than FEs!!! it's incredible!
Logged
"They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it"
?

11cookeaw1

Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2013, 01:23:04 AM »
And they still can't answer it.
Logged
?

11cookeaw1

Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #52 on: November 02, 2013, 04:05:01 AM »
So can any FE'er answer this, I guess not.
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #53 on: November 02, 2013, 04:22:22 AM »
11cookeaw1, low contents posting and bumping a thread with out adding to it are both against the rules.  Consider this a warning. 
Logged
?

alfa156melb

  • 351
  • +0/-0
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2014, 04:28:38 PM »
Quote from: mohamed on October 21, 2013, 02:38:01 PM
Quote from: darknavyseal on July 16, 2013, 11:10:55 PM
Are you actually experimenting? Data? What is this? Are you lost? This is the Flat Earth Society, you utterly foolish noob! Do you not know that data is not welcome here?

Be GONE!!! >o<

Actually there are more REs in this WEB site than FEs!!! it's incredible!

Giddy up!  That's the very frist thing you've ever posted that might actually be true!!!  Be proud of yourself!!!  8)

As far as REers go (if you have to label us) is that we come here for entertainment. much like going to the zoo to look at the animals.

Why are you here?
Logged
?

Starman

  • 3860
  • +0/-0
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2014, 06:42:05 PM »
Quote from: mohamed on October 21, 2013, 02:38:01 PM
Quote from: darknavyseal on July 16, 2013, 11:10:55 PM
Are you actually experimenting? Data? What is this? Are you lost? This is the Flat Earth Society, you utterly foolish noob! Do you not know that data is not welcome here?

Be GONE!!! >o<

Actually there are more REs in this WEB site than FEs!!! it's incredible!

That is because RE people know the real world is something you can not only see but measure. FE people are mostly about theory. All bark and no bite.
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2014, 08:06:56 PM »
Yes, and I am sure that you go around all day measuring the "real world", right?  ::)
Logged
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2014, 08:35:51 PM »
Quote from: jroa on February 22, 2014, 08:06:56 PM
Yes, and I am sure that you go around all day measuring the "real world", right?  ::)

Have you tried this experiment yet jroa? I did. I also gave the results and what they should have been for a flat earth.
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: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #58 on: February 22, 2014, 08:41:06 PM »
Did you take into account any possibility of atmospheric distortion? 
Logged
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!
« Reply #59 on: February 22, 2014, 09:05:31 PM »
Quote from: jroa on February 22, 2014, 08:41:06 PM
Did you take into account any possibility of atmospheric distortion?

Yes. On the day the measurements were taken, atmospheric conditions should have made the mountain appear slightly taller than it is, which would have given it an apparent height greater than the FE expectations if the earth were flat. The fact that the actual measurements were still so far from FE expectations favours a round earth.
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."
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »