« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Triple Right Triangle

  • 96 Replies
  • 36434 Views
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2013, 06:08:06 PM »
Quote from: rottingroom on September 15, 2013, 05:55:32 PM
I have found this definition of perpendicular:

per·pen·dic·u·lar   (pûrpn-dky-lr)
adv.
4. A vertical or nearly vertical line or plane.

It could explain why in this case it can still be appropriate to use that word when describing the intersection of latitude and longitude because clearly they are not perfectly perpendicular.

The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat. 
Logged
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #61 on: September 15, 2013, 06:09:28 PM »
Quote from: jroa on September 15, 2013, 06:08:06 PM
Quote from: rottingroom on September 15, 2013, 05:55:32 PM
I have found this definition of perpendicular:

per·pen·dic·u·lar   (pûrpn-dky-lr)
adv.
4. A vertical or nearly vertical line or plane.

It could explain why in this case it can still be appropriate to use that word when describing the intersection of latitude and longitude because clearly they are not perfectly perpendicular.

The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.

remember that word nearly? As in you nearly made a good point?
Logged
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #62 on: September 15, 2013, 07:09:28 PM »
Quote from: jroa on September 15, 2013, 06:08:06 PM
The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.

If your requirement for 'perpendicular' is that the reference line/plane be devoid of curvature, then longitude lines cannot be perpendicular to latitude lines, as the latter always curve (with the exception of the equator on a round earth, at least in a North/South sense).

This is all rather pointless anyway, as a triple right triangle does not have to be done on lines of latitude and longitude (although that would make it much easier). It could theoretically be done in any arbitrary location, in any arbitrary direction. All that is required is to travel 1/4 of the circumference each time, with 90° turns.
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."
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2013, 07:12:49 PM »
Quote from: Scintific Method on September 15, 2013, 07:09:28 PM
Quote from: jroa on September 15, 2013, 06:08:06 PM
The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.

If your requirement for 'perpendicular' is that the reference line/plane be devoid of curvature, then longitude lines cannot be perpendicular to latitude lines, as the latter always curve (with the exception of the equator on a round earth, at least in a North/South sense).

This is all rather pointless anyway, as a triple right triangle does not have to be done on lines of latitude and longitude (although that would make it much easier). It could theoretically be done in any arbitrary location, in any arbitrary direction. All that is required is to travel 1/4 of the circumference each time, with 90° turns.

This is correct. It's just easier to visualize if one of the points is the north pole.
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #64 on: September 15, 2013, 07:21:25 PM »
Quote from: Scintific Method on September 15, 2013, 07:09:28 PM
Quote from: jroa on September 15, 2013, 06:08:06 PM
The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.

If your requirement for 'perpendicular' is that the reference line/plane be devoid of curvature, then longitude lines cannot be perpendicular to latitude lines, as the latter always curve (with the exception of the equator on a round earth, at least in a North/South sense).

This is all rather pointless anyway, as a triple right triangle does not have to be done on lines of latitude and longitude (although that would make it much easier). It could theoretically be done in any arbitrary location, in any arbitrary direction. All that is required is to travel 1/4 of the circumference each time, with 90° turns.

Well, since this experiment has never and will never be done by anyone, the point was moot to begin with.  Why are we even debating whether or not this is possible?  It is like when RE'ers trying to argue that if Earth was flat, then it would be possible to fly to the edge, even though he nor I ever plan to partake in an experiment to find out.
Logged
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #65 on: September 15, 2013, 07:25:52 PM »
Quote from: jroa on September 15, 2013, 07:21:25 PM
Quote from: Scintific Method on September 15, 2013, 07:09:28 PM
Quote from: jroa on September 15, 2013, 06:08:06 PM
The vertical line or plane can only be perpendicular if the Earth is flat.

If your requirement for 'perpendicular' is that the reference line/plane be devoid of curvature, then longitude lines cannot be perpendicular to latitude lines, as the latter always curve (with the exception of the equator on a round earth, at least in a North/South sense).

This is all rather pointless anyway, as a triple right triangle does not have to be done on lines of latitude and longitude (although that would make it much easier). It could theoretically be done in any arbitrary location, in any arbitrary direction. All that is required is to travel 1/4 of the circumference each time, with 90° turns.

Well, since this experiment has never and will never be done by anyone, the point was moot to begin with.  Why are we even debating whether or not this is possible?  It is like when RE'ers trying to argue that if Earth was flat, then it would be possible to fly to the edge, even though he nor I ever plan to partake in an experiment to find out.

I agree. It does seem appropriate that a FE'r (not talking to you in this instance jroa) would have trouble thinking about things in a 3-dimensional sense though.
Logged
*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #66 on: September 15, 2013, 08:28:12 PM »
I was just trying to propose a way to stop the arguments once and for all. Someone should do it and see what happens and then we'll know.
Logged


Quote from: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 08:29:11 AM
I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #67 on: September 15, 2013, 09:35:29 PM »
Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on September 15, 2013, 08:28:12 PM
I was just trying to propose a way to stop the arguments once and for all. Someone should do it and see what happens and then we'll know.

It's a good point, but on the proposed scale just gets thrown in the "too hard" basket.

The good news is that it can be (and has been) done on a smaller scale, not by making a triple right triangle, but rather one where the angles invariably add to more than 180°. As this is only possible on a round earth, it's pretty good proof. Not good enough for FEs of course, you could take them to the moon and show them the beauty of our round earth, and they'd still say it was flat!
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."
*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #68 on: September 17, 2013, 07:25:57 AM »
On a round earth there is no such thing as a straight line when projected onto a flat surface.  The 90 triple triangle is made of arcs, not straight lines.  You can scale down the triple triangle by using headings and maintaining those headings.  Travel at 180 on a compass, the 90 or 270 and maintain that heading,  then travel at 0. Make sure you travel the same distance each time,  you have your triple triangle on RE. There is nothing special about the pole and equator.  I believe that was the point Thork was trying to lead you all to without holding your hand to get there.
Logged
Quote from: Starman on April 30, 2014, 09:07:24 AM
Quote from: jroa on April 30, 2014, 09:05:37 AM
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.
*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #69 on: September 17, 2013, 07:35:53 AM »
I never once said there was anything special about the pole or the equator.
And for all intents and purposes, on a round Earth, the lines are straight.
That's why this would be pretty good evidence for either side, depending on how it went.
You could scale it down as well,
If it creates a triangle with an interior angle sum of >180 degrees, the Earth is round.
If it creates a square missing one of its sides, the Earth is flat.

Try it out.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 10:20:54 AM by th3rm0m3t3r0 »
Logged


Quote from: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 08:29:11 AM
I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #70 on: September 17, 2013, 07:46:47 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 17, 2013, 07:25:57 AM
On a round earth there is no such thing as a straight line when projected onto a flat surface.  The 90 triple triangle is made of arcs, not straight lines.  You can scale down the triple triangle by using headings and maintaining those headings.  Travel at 180 on a compass, the 90 or 270 and maintain that heading,  then travel at 0. Make sure you travel the same distance each time,  you have your triple triangle on RE. There is nothing special about the pole and equator.  I believe that was the point Thork was trying to lead you all to without holding your hand to get there.

Apparently you don't get it either. Everyone is aware that these are circles or as you put it, arcs. However going straight south (if starting at the north pole) a 90° right turn is only possible at the equator if the goal again is to make 3 right angles to make a right triangle. Turning right at any other line of latitude would not accomplish this. No wonder you became a FE'r.
Logged
*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #71 on: September 17, 2013, 07:52:36 AM »
Is 90o not perpendicular to 0 or 180o?  I'll admit that traveling any less than 1/4 of the earth's circumference at a given latitude will give you two 90s and one smaller angle on RE. But again,  there is nothing special about the pole and equator other than that is what our coordinate system is based from.  The "pole" could be any other point on Earth and work fine.
Logged
Quote from: Starman on April 30, 2014, 09:07:24 AM
Quote from: jroa on April 30, 2014, 09:05:37 AM
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #72 on: September 17, 2013, 08:00:04 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 17, 2013, 07:52:36 AM
Is 90o not perpendicular to 0 or 180o?  I'll admit that traveling any less than 1/4 of the earth's circumference at a given latitude will give you two 90s and one smaller angle on RE. But again,  there is nothing special about the pole and equator other than that is what our coordinate system is based from.  The "pole" could be any other point on Earth and work fine.

Correct. I'm not saying there is anything special about it. My example is IF the starting location is the north pole. It is being used to make the discussion more simple. No matter where you start you have to take out an entire 1/4 segment of the sphere. In all the examples with thork we started from there and he showed that he didn't understand. He kept saying that we can do it with a smaller triangle which is false. You saying he was holding our hands means you either don't get it yourself or you didn't read the thread. Since this latest comment now shows that you do get it, it follows that you just didn't read it. Please avoid posting if you don't have the time to read.
Logged
*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #73 on: September 17, 2013, 08:09:07 AM »
I read it, trust me.  Doesn't change the fact that you have been saying it's only possible if you go to the equator from a pole, which is demonstrably false.  Even if you followed Thork's experiment, you'd get more than 180o on RE so it would still prove one way or another, granted 300 yards is miniscule comparative to the earth and supposed curvature, a few miles would work better.
Logged
Quote from: Starman on April 30, 2014, 09:07:24 AM
Quote from: jroa on April 30, 2014, 09:05:37 AM
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #74 on: September 17, 2013, 08:13:39 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 17, 2013, 08:09:07 AM
I read it, trust me.  Doesn't change the fact that you have been saying it's only possible if you go to the equator from a pole, which is demonstrably false.  Even if you followed Thork's experiment, you'd get more than 180o on RE so it would still prove one way or another, granted 300 yards is miniscule comparative to the earth and supposed curvature, a few miles would work better.

I didn't say you have to start from a pole. I just explained that to you. Also, you are wrong, you can't do this by going a few miles. The fact that FE'rs can't understand that is a good example of the low intellect needed to think earth is flat.
Logged
?

The Captain

  • 89
  • +0/-0
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #75 on: September 24, 2013, 02:23:50 PM »
Quote from: Ævan on September 15, 2013, 12:07:41 PM
Quote from: rottingroom on September 15, 2013, 11:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ævan on September 15, 2013, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 15, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.

I always find comments like
Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on September 15, 2013, 11:09:44 AM
you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.

It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.

It does. you need to do some research and come back when you are ready to debate.

Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml

And of course being a sphere you can start anywhere. So do this experiment yourself and tell me if you end up where you started. If you don't the earth is flat.


Did it. Ended up at the same spot. Earth is round. Good game everyone we can all go home.
Logged
?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #76 on: September 27, 2013, 10:00:02 PM »
Quote from: The Captain on September 24, 2013, 02:23:50 PM
Quote from: Ævan on September 15, 2013, 12:07:41 PM
Quote from: rottingroom on September 15, 2013, 11:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ævan on September 15, 2013, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 15, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.

I always find comments like
Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on September 15, 2013, 11:09:44 AM
you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.

It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.

It does. you need to do some research and come back when you are ready to debate.

Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml

And of course being a sphere you can start anywhere. So do this experiment yourself and tell me if you end up where you started. If you don't the earth is flat.


Did it. Ended up at the same spot. Earth is round. Good game everyone we can all go home.

I bet you didn't actually do it though. That is kind of mean. AEvan raises a good point, and it should be respected. Has this triple-right-triangle ever been done on the Earth?
Logged
?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • +0/-0
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #77 on: September 27, 2013, 10:21:10 PM »
Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 10:00:02 PM
Quote from: The Captain on September 24, 2013, 02:23:50 PM
Quote from: Ævan on September 15, 2013, 12:07:41 PM
Quote from: rottingroom on September 15, 2013, 11:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ævan on September 15, 2013, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 15, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.

I always find comments like
Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on September 15, 2013, 11:09:44 AM
you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.

It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.

It does. you need to do some research and come back when you are ready to debate.

Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml

And of course being a sphere you can start anywhere. So do this experiment yourself and tell me if you end up where you started. If you don't the earth is flat.


Did it. Ended up at the same spot. Earth is round. Good game everyone we can all go home.

I bet you didn't actually do it though. That is kind of mean. AEvan raises a good point, and it should be respected. Has this triple-right-triangle ever been done on the Earth?

I'll go out on a limb and say with the confidence of a google search and common sense, no.  Nobody has had the time, resources, and reason to confirm the shape of the Earth in such a roundabout way as to travel three quarters of the circumference of the Earth.  Much of which would be over water, and would likely have to be confirmed multiple times to be sure the results were accurate.

There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale.  It's a very common thing, in fact.
Logged
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.
?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #78 on: September 27, 2013, 10:28:26 PM »
Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 27, 2013, 10:21:10 PM
Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 10:00:02 PM
Quote from: The Captain on September 24, 2013, 02:23:50 PM
Quote from: Ævan on September 15, 2013, 12:07:41 PM
Quote from: rottingroom on September 15, 2013, 11:50:51 AM
Quote from: Ævan on September 15, 2013, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 15, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
It could, hypothetically, work at such a small distance if you're very precise.
this guy gets it.

I always find comments like
Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on September 15, 2013, 11:09:44 AM
you're proving that you have a basic misunderstanding of non-Euclidean geometry.
particularly annoying when something so obvious to me is completely missed by the person I am addressing and they in some way think its my education that is lacking.

It can't work at a small distance. The blue line is not a straight line. Obviously.
It should a would work on a smaller distance. Get a globe and trace with your finger a smaller triangle following say the 10 degree line of latitude. I don't want to keep tooing and froing with it does work, it doesn't work.

It does. you need to do some research and come back when you are ready to debate.

Below the same conundrum is actually a riddle using 10 miles as the distance.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml

And of course being a sphere you can start anywhere. So do this experiment yourself and tell me if you end up where you started. If you don't the earth is flat.


Did it. Ended up at the same spot. Earth is round. Good game everyone we can all go home.

I bet you didn't actually do it though. That is kind of mean. AEvan raises a good point, and it should be respected. Has this triple-right-triangle ever been done on the Earth?

I'll go out on a limb and say with the confidence of a google search and common sense, no.  Nobody has had the time, resources, and reason to confirm the shape of the Earth in such a roundabout way as to travel three quarters of the circumference of the Earth.  Much of which would be over water, and would likely have to be confirmed multiple times to be sure the results were accurate.

There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale.  It's a very common thing, in fact.

Great! Do you have a link? An article citation? I'm not being sarcastic by the way (sometimes you can't tell in a forum), but we should all be up to date, RE'ers or FE'ers, on common observations.
Logged
?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • +0/-0
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #79 on: September 27, 2013, 10:44:48 PM »
Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 10:28:26 PM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 27, 2013, 10:21:10 PM
Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 10:00:02 PM
I'll go out on a limb and say with the confidence of a google search and common sense, no.  Nobody has had the time, resources, and reason to confirm the shape of the Earth in such a roundabout way as to travel three quarters of the circumference of the Earth.  Much of which would be over water, and would likely have to be confirmed multiple times to be sure the results were accurate.

There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale.  It's a very common thing, in fact.

Great! Do you have a link? An article citation? I'm not being sarcastic by the way (sometimes you can't tell in a forum), but we should all be up to date, RE'ers or FE'ers, on common observations.

I'll do my best to produce some third party citation that can be considered reliable when I get off work tomorrow, or when I get some free time.  As it stands it's midnight and I need to get up at four and be ready to operate heavy machinery by five, so sleep is needed soon.  Sorry about being such a tease with information.  :P
Logged
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.
?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #80 on: September 27, 2013, 10:48:30 PM »
Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 27, 2013, 10:44:48 PM
Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 10:28:26 PM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 27, 2013, 10:21:10 PM
Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 10:00:02 PM
I'll go out on a limb and say with the confidence of a google search and common sense, no.  Nobody has had the time, resources, and reason to confirm the shape of the Earth in such a roundabout way as to travel three quarters of the circumference of the Earth.  Much of which would be over water, and would likely have to be confirmed multiple times to be sure the results were accurate.

There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale.  It's a very common thing, in fact.

Great! Do you have a link? An article citation? I'm not being sarcastic by the way (sometimes you can't tell in a forum), but we should all be up to date, RE'ers or FE'ers, on common observations.

I'll do my best to produce some third party citation that can be considered reliable when I get off work tomorrow, or when I get some free time.  As it stands it's midnight and I need to get up at four and be ready to operate heavy machinery by five, so sleep is needed soon.  Sorry about being such a tease with information.  :P

No no, that's alright. I look forward to reading it later.
Logged
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #81 on: September 28, 2013, 06:49:07 AM »
Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 10:28:26 PM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 27, 2013, 10:21:10 PM
There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale.  It's a very common thing, in fact.

Great! Do you have a link? An article citation? I'm not being sarcastic by the way (sometimes you can't tell in a forum), but we should all be up to date, RE'ers or FE'ers, on common observations.

May I?

ENaG: Spherical Excess

As far as the claims of "collimation" being the culprit for these measurements, a little reading on the matter soon shows that to be bunkum.
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."
?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #82 on: September 28, 2013, 10:20:03 AM »
Quote from: Scintific Method on September 28, 2013, 06:49:07 AM
Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 10:28:26 PM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 27, 2013, 10:21:10 PM
There have been, however, many observations of triangles with greater than average interior angles, the same effect at a lesser scale.  It's a very common thing, in fact.

Great! Do you have a link? An article citation? I'm not being sarcastic by the way (sometimes you can't tell in a forum), but we should all be up to date, RE'ers or FE'ers, on common observations.

May I?

ENaG: Spherical Excess

As far as the claims of "collimation" being the culprit for these measurements, a little reading on the matter soon shows that to be bunkum.

Thank you! As I read it, I say to myself: Hmm, can we do better? Are there more modern measurements?

"Collimation" does exist, and one cannot throw out the possibility of it skewing the measurements. However, the collimation effect is instrument-dependent. Different instruments will collimate differently. So by repeating the measurements over a hundred times, we need to know what they mean by that. Did they use different instruments?

Also, one must provide a calculation for the collimation and show that it produces an effect as great as the spherical excess they were measuring. We cannot simply just say: collimation exists and it is what did it. We have to SHOW it did. This is the only way to be sure we are not mistaken. 
Logged
?

spoon

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 1363
  • +0/-0
  • ho ho ho
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #83 on: September 28, 2013, 10:35:48 AM »
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.

That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.
Logged
Quote from: squevil on July 21, 2013, 06:14:24 AM
I work nights are get the feeling of impennding doom for things most people take for granted.
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #84 on: September 28, 2013, 10:39:18 AM »
Quote from: spoon on September 28, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.

That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.

It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.
Logged
?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #85 on: September 28, 2013, 10:39:24 AM »
Quote from: spoon on September 28, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.

That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.

No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).

I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
Logged
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #86 on: September 28, 2013, 10:55:10 AM »
Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 28, 2013, 10:39:24 AM
Quote from: spoon on September 28, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.

That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.

No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).

I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.


No Seeker that isn't what we claim. This thread is about using a right triangle and using that it can only be done with an entire quarter segment of a sphere. As already stated it can be done with a SIMILAR experiment but not at all the EXACT same experiment. That is one where instead of a right triangle you use any triangle and this is because if the earth is flat then the sum of angles will be 180° but on a sphere it won't be. Of course you'll need to go a decent distance to do this but not nearly as bad as 10,000 miles per line.

No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).

I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.
Logged
?

spoon

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 1363
  • +0/-0
  • ho ho ho
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #87 on: September 28, 2013, 10:56:23 AM »
Quote from: rottingroom on September 28, 2013, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: spoon on September 28, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.

That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.

It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.

It is dumb because it isn't easily tested. All it is saying is "If RE is true, then this is true." Actual evidence is "If this is true, RE is true."

.. Unless you have a method by which we can test this.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 28, 2013, 10:39:24 AM
Quote from: spoon on September 28, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.

That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.

No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).

I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.

Where has "RE science" claimed it works scaled down?

Also, the moment you bend the paper, you lose the triangle.
Logged
Quote from: squevil on July 21, 2013, 06:14:24 AM
I work nights are get the feeling of impennding doom for things most people take for granted.
?

SeekerOfTruth

  • 449
  • +0/-0
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #88 on: September 28, 2013, 11:00:13 AM »
Quote from: spoon on September 28, 2013, 10:56:23 AM
Quote from: rottingroom on September 28, 2013, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: spoon on September 28, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.

That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.

It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.

It is dumb because it isn't easily tested. All it is saying is "If RE is true, then this is true." Actual evidence is "If this is true, RE is true."

.. Unless you have a method by which we can test this.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 28, 2013, 10:39:24 AM
Quote from: spoon on September 28, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.

That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.

No that is not true. RE science claims the triangle "experiment" will work even if you do not walk halfway to the other side. I'm not saying RE science is correct, I am just stating what they themselves say about it. Roundy is mistaken (it happens).

I do not see why a triangle on a sphere makes no sense. I can cut a triangle out of paper and put it on a ball. I see WITH MY EYES a triangle on a sphere makes sense.

Where has "RE science" claimed it works scaled down?

Also, the moment you bend the paper, you lose the triangle.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalTrigonometry.html

No constraint is made forcing the side of the triangle to equal the radius of curvature.

As to your second question: Try it. With paper. Put the triangle on a baseball, or beach ball, or your head! It works just fine.
Logged
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Triple Right Triangle
« Reply #89 on: September 28, 2013, 11:00:49 AM »
Quote from: spoon on September 28, 2013, 10:56:23 AM
Quote from: rottingroom on September 28, 2013, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: spoon on September 28, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been pointed out, Thork is dumb. You can't "scale down" the experiment by walking in a smaller triangle. This "experiment" on a round earth will only work if each side length of the triangle is halfway to the opposite side, as Roundy pointed out.

That aside, the concept is dumb. I don't see how it would be possible to test. Also, Rounders, you sound dumb when you mix Euclidean and non Euclidean geometric terms. Don't talk about a triangle on the surface of a sphere. It makes no sense.

It certainly isn't dumb when earlier in the thread we made it clear that a straight line in this case would be considered an arc. We had established that to squash any confusion and the FE'rs agreed.

It is dumb because it isn't easily tested. All it is saying is "If RE is true, then this is true." Actual evidence is "If this is true, RE is true."

.. Unless you have a method by which we can test this.


You said we were dumb for using a euclidean term for discussing non-euclidean geometry. That was the point I was referring too.

Also I have offered a simpler experiment. Not easy but far more feasible. Not to suggest anyone would actually do it but a point nonetheless.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
« previous next »