The Great Shape Experiment.

  • 43 Replies
  • 8180 Views
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2013, 07:09:25 PM »
If we also took a compass to the shadow and wrote down in what direction the shadow pointed, we would be able to use this information to calculate the apparent location of the Sun (the point on Earth where the yardstick would cast no shadow at all) and even it's apparent altitude above the Earth.

A suggestion? Rather than using a compass, which does not always point to true north, perhaps put in the extra effort to locate true north and draw a true north-south line at the position you will be placing your yardstick. In the northern hemisphere, this would be easiest done by locating the north celestial pole. In the southern hemisphere, locate the southern celestial pole (a little more fiddly, but it can be done; I did it as a child so that I could make an accurate sundial for a school project). Just a thought to give greater accuracy.

This might be more accurate, but a lot more difficult. The compass'll give accurate enough answers. Plus the deviation from true north is known for various locations. If I get straight compass measurements, I can do the rest myself.

Good point. Aeronautical navigation charts have magnetic deviations marked on them, so if you could get a hold of one for your area (or find the same info elsewhere), you could apply the correction much more easily. Didn't think of that before, thanks Alex!
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."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-113
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2013, 07:20:54 PM »
Good point. Aeronautical navigation charts have magnetic deviations marked on them, so if you could get a hold of one for your area (or find the same info elsewhere), you could apply the correction much more easily. Didn't think of that before, thanks Alex!
Or, you could try this site: http://magnetic-declination.com/
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.

?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2013, 07:29:09 PM »
Good point. Aeronautical navigation charts have magnetic deviations marked on them, so if you could get a hold of one for your area (or find the same info elsewhere), you could apply the correction much more easily. Didn't think of that before, thanks Alex!
Or, you could try this site: http://magnetic-declination.com/

Thanks, I'll definitely use that! Hopefully the others will do the compass reading, because otherwise the entire thing's pointless and shows nothing.

Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2013, 07:07:45 AM »
I don't know anything about magnetic deviations.  Can someone explain what I need to do?

?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2013, 07:51:04 AM »
I don't know anything about magnetic deviations.  Can someone explain what I need to do?

You just need to set a compass beside the shadow and take record of the direction of the shadow. If the shadow is pointing roughly 300 degrees, write that down.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #35 on: August 09, 2013, 12:29:49 AM »
UPDATE:

Unfortunately, there have been only 4 entries into this experiment since I posted it and of those 4, the sole flat-earth participant has told me that he will not be participating. Due to the limitations of people attending and the fact that there will be no flat-earth participants whatsoever I feel I have no choice but to cancel this experiment. It is a shame as the results would have been interesting to find the results.

On a side note, I do not find it surprising that flat-earthers were unwilling to participate in this event.

?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #36 on: August 09, 2013, 06:45:35 AM »
UPDATE:

Unfortunately, there have been only 4 entries into this experiment since I posted it and of those 4, the sole flat-earth participant has told me that he will not be participating. Due to the limitations of people attending and the fact that there will be no flat-earth participants whatsoever I feel I have no choice but to cancel this experiment. It is a shame as the results would have been interesting to find the results.

On a side note, I do not find it surprising that flat-earthers were unwilling to participate in this event.

Three measurements is easily enough to see if something wonky is happening. I'll still do the maths if the others are still willing to do the measurements.

Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #37 on: August 09, 2013, 07:52:23 AM »
I was a flat earth believer when I joined this forum and I'm participating in the experiment.  I am on the fence about the Earth being spherical but INVERTED, with a glass/ice sky/wall separating us from "space".  However, I am suspecting that the main reason this experiment is not popular is because of the affect of the sun's rays not being parallel.  I really don't think that shadows are going to prove one or the other.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2013, 07:56:37 AM by EarthIsASpaceship »

?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #38 on: August 09, 2013, 08:01:29 AM »
I was a flat earth believer when I joined this forum and I'm participating in the experiment.  I am on the fence about the Earth being spherical but INVERTED, with a glass/ice sky/wall separating us from "space".  However, I am suspecting that the main reason this experiment is not popular is because of the affect of the sun's rays not being parallel.  I really don't think that shadows are going to prove one or the other.

Hence the bloody compass readings! With a compass reading, a shadow length, and a position on the Earth, it's possible to triangulate the position of the Sun and/or actually figure out a number for Bendy Light.

?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #39 on: August 09, 2013, 08:47:11 AM »
If ANYBODY wants to take the measurements (That is, length and direction of shadow), please PM me your results, as well as the city/[state]/country from which you took the measurement (or lat-lon coordinates). I'll do the calculations Wednesday and post the results on Thursday.

Thanks!

?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #40 on: August 10, 2013, 11:45:59 AM »
Okay, did anybody else take measurements? I did, so at the very least I could estimate the sun's distance based on FE assumptions, but it'd be nice if I got a few more points of reference so no assumptions would be needed.

Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #41 on: August 10, 2013, 02:49:36 PM »
Was cloudy and rainy here.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #42 on: August 10, 2013, 04:14:14 PM »
Oh, shit.  Was today the day?

?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: The Great Shape Experiment.
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2013, 11:11:32 AM »
Okay, it appears nobody else did this. It's a shame, really, as it's such a simple experiment....

Anyway, here's my results: 800 mm, 310 degrees. Using these numbers, the sun should have been above 15.01 -99.7039.

However, the sun really was (in either model) at 15.35 -88.95, about ten degrees farther east than my observations showed. FE predicted that my yardstick would cast a shadow 943 mm long at 293 degrees, about 14 cm longer than my actual value.

MATHS:
Note: The RE maths are way more complicated, and I don't feel like going through them. The following is geometry done on flat planes and thus coincide with what is predicted by FE.



From Points to shadow measurements

Consider a triangle with points A, B, and N at the place of observation, the point directly beneath the Sun, and the north pole respectively. Leg NA is, by definition, parallel to the line of longitude at point A; the same logic applies to leg NB. Leg AB is our target unknown--the total distance between our place of observation and the point directly beneath the Sun.

Let us create a third line, AC, which connects from Point A to Leg NB such that it intersects Leg NB at a right angle. Let us call the point at which Leg AC connects to Leg NB "Point C". This has effectively split our triangle into two right triangles: Triangle NAC and ABC. Leg NB has also been split into Legs NC and CB, though it is important to note that Leg NB still exists as a whole just as our original triangle NAB exists as a whole.

Leg NB is easy to calculate if you know the latitude of Point B, as each degree of latitude is equal to 110.574 kilometers. So, |NB| = latB * 110.574 km. Leg NA can be calculated in like: |NA| = latA * 110.574 km.

The angle between Legs NA and NB is simple to calculate, that being the absolute value of the differences in longitude between A and B. Let us call this angle Theta. Theta = |lonB - lonA|.

The length of Leg AC can be calculated as follows: |AC| = |NA| * sin(Theta). This is the first value listed in the above examples, labeled 'west' or 'east' of the sun.

Similarly, the length of Leg NC can be calculated: |NC| = |NA| * cos(Theta).

With |NB| and |NC| now calculated, we can calculate |CB| as follows: |CB| = |NB| - |NC|. This is the second value listed in the above examples, labeled 'north' or 'south' of the sun.

With both legs of triangle ACB now known, we can calculate the hypotenuse: |AB| = sqrt(|AC|2 + |CB|2). This is the third value listed in the above examples, labeled 'total horizontal distance' from sun.

Calculating the predicted length of a shadow is now a matter of similar triangles. We know how far away the observation point is from a point directly beneath the sun, and we know how high the sun is from the Earth (roughly 4828 km, according to FE calculations). Our yardstick-shadow triangle is similar to the sun height-distance triangle. Thus, the length of a shadow produced by a 36-inch-tall object can be predicted with the following equation: |AB| * 914.4 / 4828.

Since Leg NA is, by defintion, the direction 'north' from Point A, the direction of the shadow can be calculated by its deviation from leg NA. Because Leg AB lies entirely between the observation point and the sun, the shadow would be on the other side of A, parallel to Leg AB. To find this deviation, we add together the angles BAC and CAN and subtract this total from 180.

Angle BAC is tan-1(|CB| / |AC|).

Angle CAN is 90 - Theta.

If Point B is east of Point A (the diagram is in this configuration) the direction of the shadow would be 360 - (180 - (Angle BAC + Angle CAN)).

If Point B is west of Point A (invert the diagram along its vertical axis) the direction of the shadow would be 180 - (Angle BAC + Angle CAN).

Single-equation form:
|AB| = sqrt{[(latA * 110.574 km) * sin(|lonB - lonA|)]2 + [(latB * 110.574 km) - ({latA * 110.574 km} * cos(|lonB - lonA|))]2}


From shadow measurements to points

To go back the other way (from measurements to point positions) is more of the same. The direction of our shadow is the angle NAB' with B' being a point beyond A from B such that angle B'AB is 180 degrees. Thus, Angle NAB = 180 - NAB'.

Leg NA remains the same calculation of |NA| = latA * 110.574 km.

Leg AB is also known, but only for an assumed value of the altitude of the sun over the Earth (I used 3,000 miles, as that is the most common number in FE models). Our yardstick-shadow dimensions form a triangle similar to the sun's altitude-horizontal distance triangle. Thus, |AB| = lengthshadow * altitudesun / heightyardstick.

With Legs AB and NA known, as well as the angle between them, we can use the Law of Cosines to solve for leg NB: |NB| = sqrt(|NA|2 + |AB|2 - 2 * |NA| * |AB| * cos(NAB)).

With all three legs known, we can solve for angle ANB also using the Law of Cosines: ANB = cos-1((|NB|2 + |NA|2 - |AB|2) / (2 * |NB| * |NA|)).

The latitude of Point B is an inverse of what was done above: lonB = |NB| / 110.574 km.

The longitude of Point B is simply the longitude of Point A subtract angle ANB: latB = latA - ANB.