Triple Right Triangle

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.

and which part of this specifies RIGHT triangles?

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth 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.

and which part of this specifies RIGHT triangles?

Oh dear, were we talking only about right triangles? Then I have erred. My general point is the same, however, the triangle excess (from RE point of view) exists despite the TYPE of triangle. Surely after visiting the website you concur? 

Quote from: rottingroom on September 28, 2013, 11:02:27 AM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth 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.

and which part of this specifies RIGHT triangles?

Oh dear, were we talking only about right triangles? Then I have erred. My general point is the same, however, the triangle excess (from RE point of view) exists despite the TYPE of triangle. Surely after visiting the website you concur?

Of course. Spherical-Triangle excess was my suggestion for alternative experiment all along.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 28, 2013, 11:04:55 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on September 28, 2013, 11:02:27 AM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth 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.

and which part of this specifies RIGHT triangles?

Oh dear, were we talking only about right triangles? Then I have erred. My general point is the same, however, the triangle excess (from RE point of view) exists despite the TYPE of triangle. Surely after visiting the website you concur?

Of course. Spherical-Triangle excess was my suggestion for alternative experiment all along.

Right, so I am interested in a modern experiment showing evidence for spherical excess.

Seems I was beaten to a citation, sorry about that.  I can't give you a modern experiment, since again, traveling a hundred miles in a perfectly straight line multiple times is too inconvenient for anyone to do only to confirm what's already regarded as fact.  That's part of the issue of this thread.  I can tell you that this is rather well recorded in road planning, though not apparently considered a large enough issue to have extensive databases on the subject.

If you'd like to perform the experiment and give your results, I'd be happy to help give a setup.  The same offer goes out to anyone who'd like to perform the experiment.  I can't for the foreseeable future, for the same reason it took so long to get on today, my car is on it's last legs.  If you don't, I'll likely give it a shot when I get a car that works reliably for more than three miles at a time.

Seems I was beaten to a citation, sorry about that.  I can't give you a modern experiment, since again, traveling a hundred miles in a perfectly straight line multiple times is too inconvenient for anyone to do only to confirm what's already regarded as fact.  That's part of the issue of this thread.  I can tell you that this is rather well recorded in road planning, though not apparently considered a large enough issue to have extensive databases on the subject.

If you'd like to perform the experiment and give your results, I'd be happy to help give a setup.  The same offer goes out to anyone who'd like to perform the experiment.  I can't for the foreseeable future, for the same reason it took so long to get on today, my car is on it's last legs.  If you don't, I'll likely give it a shot when I get a car that works reliably for more than three miles at a time.

Oh dear! Car problems suck. I drive with a cracked windshield and missing motor mount. We'll see which one of us crashes first!

My question I guess is: would there be differences in navigation if the Earth was flat versus round? In other words, would tracking the positions and trajectories for planes and boats work equally well on a round Earth if the pilots has trajectories assuming the Earth was curved? And vice-versa? Would they still arrive at the intended location if they assumed the opposite shape for the Earth and has maps for the wrong shape?

I've been thinking about this recently, because all trajectories are for a round earth. So we FE'ers should be able to show that it does not matter. Otherwise, your plane would land in the wrong place!

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 28, 2013, 09:07:58 PM

Seems I was beaten to a citation, sorry about that.  I can't give you a modern experiment, since again, traveling a hundred miles in a perfectly straight line multiple times is too inconvenient for anyone to do only to confirm what's already regarded as fact.  That's part of the issue of this thread.  I can tell you that this is rather well recorded in road planning, though not apparently considered a large enough issue to have extensive databases on the subject.

If you'd like to perform the experiment and give your results, I'd be happy to help give a setup.  The same offer goes out to anyone who'd like to perform the experiment.  I can't for the foreseeable future, for the same reason it took so long to get on today, my car is on it's last legs.  If you don't, I'll likely give it a shot when I get a car that works reliably for more than three miles at a time.

Oh dear! Car problems suck. I drive with a cracked windshield and missing motor mount. We'll see which one of us crashes first!

My question I guess is: would there be differences in navigation if the Earth was flat versus round? In other words, would tracking the positions and trajectories for planes and boats work equally well on a round Earth if the pilots has trajectories assuming the Earth was curved? And vice-versa? Would they still arrive at the intended location if they assumed the opposite shape for the Earth and has maps for the wrong shape?

I've been thinking about this recently, because all trajectories are for a round earth. So we FE'ers should be able to show that it does not matter. Otherwise, your plane would land in the wrong place!

Indeed they do, and they're expensive too.  My trans and engine are both getting ready to buy the farm, so less crashing with more fuel-guzzling and stalling every red light.  Still ought to be interesting to see whose lasts the longest.

To the topic, yes, this has been an issue raised several times in the past.  For instance, try this topic on for size.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54792.0.html#.Uke19YbrwZw


To sum up the most general responses, airlines often take a ludicrously incorrect path without realizing it, they do realize it and it's a conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth and make lots of money somehow, or that no real flat Earth map has been given so any discrepancies caused by distortions on the current map don't count against flat Earth models.  Or as in the example thread, some amount of faked technical jargon with no backing whatsoever.