For All My Fellow Believers!

When people tell me they think the Earth is round I almost want to burst into laughter. The only reason no body has ever proved that you can fall of the Earth is because the people who have seen the end of the Earth where sucked up by space. 

When people tell me they think the Earth is round I almost want to burst into laughter. The only reason no body has ever proved that you can fall of the Earth is because the people who have seen the end of the Earth where sucked up by space.

Slight correction Shems:  Round earthers do not "think" the earth is round.  We know for a fact that it is.

And you should know anyway that on the flat earth model usually referred to, a massive, continuous ice wall surrounds the entire surface of the planet, prohibiting anybody from passing over it or through it.  So it'd be impossible to "fall off" the planet on a flat earth model.

Quote from: ShemsTheBeliever on January 15, 2014, 06:26:32 PM

When people tell me they think the Earth is round I almost want to burst into laughter. The only reason no body has ever proved that you can fall of the Earth is because the people who have seen the end of the Earth where sucked up by space.

Slight correction Shems:  Round earthers do not "think" the earth is round.  We know for a fact that it is.

And you should know anyway that on the flat earth model usually referred to, a massive, continuous ice wall surrounds the entire surface of the planet, prohibiting anybody from passing over it or through it.  So it'd be impossible to "fall off" the planet on a flat earth model.

A supported and factual claim of Earth shape can only be made by FEers.

Any qualified science instructor on their first day of class will admit that there is no truth in science.   

Period.

Any qualified science instructor on their first day of class will admit that there is no truth in science.   

This is possibly the most absurd and comical claim I've read on this site!  Well done.

A supported and factual claim of Earth shape can only be made by FEers.

Great. Please provide some facts that show without a doubt the earth is flat.

Quote

A supported and factual claim of Earth shape can only be made by FEers.

Great. Please provide some facts that show without a doubt the earth is flat.

The Earth can be mapped to 360 degrees. 360 degrees only works on a Rectangular Map.

Quote from: gotham on January 18, 2014, 07:04:11 PM

Any qualified science instructor on their first day of class will admit that there is no truth in science.   

This is possibly the most absurd and comical claim I've read on this site!  Well done.

I will try relaying that to the qualified science instructor who made the quote.  He stood in front of the class and dropped a ball saying "it is not a scientific truth that the ball will hit the ground" and followed with "because there is no truth in science".

He was explaining the scientific method.  He said that because of hypothesis testing, the ball will probably hit the ground because the hypothesis of the falling ball is tested over and over again...but it not a scientific truth that it will hit the ground.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 19, 2014, 04:27:53 AM

Quote from: gotham on January 18, 2014, 07:04:11 PM

Any qualified science instructor on their first day of class will admit that there is no truth in science.   

This is possibly the most absurd and comical claim I've read on this site!  Well done.

I will try relaying that to the qualified science instructor who made the quote.  He stood in front of the class and dropped a ball saying "it is not a scientific truth that the ball will hit the ground" and followed with "because there is no truth in science".

He was explaining the scientific method.  He said that because of hypothesis testing, the ball will probably hit the ground because the hypothesis of the falling ball is tested over and over again...but it not a scientific truth that it will hit the ground.

I don't see a problem with this. I'm pretty familiar with this type of intro to a science class as well and it's all for the good that the scientific attitude is like this. It promotes experimentation and free thought. If the science teacher were passing off the idea that the ball will hit the ground as a fact then they would be doing a bad job at conveying what the scientific method is about.

You should be applauding the fact that the philosophy of science is this way with all the mantra's you pronounce.

Quote from: Umurweird on January 19, 2014, 07:59:22 AM

Quote

A supported and factual claim of Earth shape can only be made by FEers.

Great. Please provide some facts that show without a doubt the earth is flat.

The Earth can be mapped to 360 degrees. 360 degrees only works on a Rectangular Map.

You really need to provide an explanation here. What are you saying?

Quote from: gotham on January 19, 2014, 09:06:50 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 19, 2014, 04:27:53 AM

Quote from: gotham on January 18, 2014, 07:04:11 PM

Any qualified science instructor on their first day of class will admit that there is no truth in science.   

This is possibly the most absurd and comical claim I've read on this site!  Well done.

I will try relaying that to the qualified science instructor who made the quote.  He stood in front of the class and dropped a ball saying "it is not a scientific truth that the ball will hit the ground" and followed with "because there is no truth in science".

He was explaining the scientific method.  He said that because of hypothesis testing, the ball will probably hit the ground because the hypothesis of the falling ball is tested over and over again...but it not a scientific truth that it will hit the ground.

I don't see a problem with this. I'm pretty familiar with this type of intro to a science class as well and it's all for the good that the scientific attitude is like this. It promotes experimentation and free thought. If the science teacher were passing off the idea that the ball will hit the ground as a fact then they would be doing a bad job at conveying what the scientific method is about.

You should be applauding the fact that the philosophy of science is this way with all the mantra's you pronounce.

One important mantra is that there is truth outside of science by not within it.  That does make good sense.

Quote from: rottingroom on January 19, 2014, 09:15:50 AM

Quote from: gotham on January 19, 2014, 09:06:50 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 19, 2014, 04:27:53 AM

Quote from: gotham on January 18, 2014, 07:04:11 PM

Any qualified science instructor on their first day of class will admit that there is no truth in science.   

This is possibly the most absurd and comical claim I've read on this site!  Well done.

I will try relaying that to the qualified science instructor who made the quote.  He stood in front of the class and dropped a ball saying "it is not a scientific truth that the ball will hit the ground" and followed with "because there is no truth in science".

He was explaining the scientific method.  He said that because of hypothesis testing, the ball will probably hit the ground because the hypothesis of the falling ball is tested over and over again...but it not a scientific truth that it will hit the ground.

I don't see a problem with this. I'm pretty familiar with this type of intro to a science class as well and it's all for the good that the scientific attitude is like this. It promotes experimentation and free thought. If the science teacher were passing off the idea that the ball will hit the ground as a fact then they would be doing a bad job at conveying what the scientific method is about.

You should be applauding the fact that the philosophy of science is this way with all the mantra's you pronounce.

One important mantra is that there is truth outside of science by not within it.  That does make good sense.

Sure, truth is independent of human thought even. Science however, makes due with the consideration of our imperfect senses and doesn't testify that we can know truth. It just does the best it can with our limitations and remains honest about when it can or can't proceed with the collected data and even after the analysis and theorizing done after processing that data, Science will not arrogantly claim truth. It explores all options. Some scientific theories become the most widely recognized and that is because they are the most reliable. They are not infallible in the way you suggest that looking out your window absolutely determines the shape of the earth. The Scientific approach doesn't stop there because it is true exploration.

The Earth can be mapped to 360 degrees. 360 degrees only works on a Rectangular Map.

That isn't a fact that proves the Earth is flat.

I'm sure I could take a map of the globe and make it fit on a triangle somehow..........would that prove the Earth is a triangle?

Quote from: Sculelos on January 19, 2014, 08:48:35 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on January 19, 2014, 07:59:22 AM

Quote

A supported and factual claim of Earth shape can only be made by FEers.

Great. Please provide some facts that show without a doubt the earth is flat.

The Earth can be mapped to 360 degrees. 360 degrees only works on a Rectangular Map.

You really need to provide an explanation here. What are you saying?

Basically I'm saying that if 360 degrees is what a compass maps to (And it is) if you tried to follow a globe with compass navigation you would over correct and be off about 14.6% per direction change.

Also on a Spherical Earth it would only take 314.16 Degrees to make a full Circle but we know in real life it takes 360 degrees to make a full circle. 400 Degrees makes a Square but if you map 360 degrees into 400 degrees you will be always uniformly 1.1111111111111111111111111111111% off direction but the kicker is so will the compass so you will always stay in line with what direction you are going even though once you make 9 Full 90 Degree turns (Circle the World) you will have navigated 810 degrees minus 1 degree per side so 801 degrees meaning that the Earth must be Two squares side by side exactly as shown in this map. (However as we are humans we will never see 360 degrees as Square but as Circle as we will never see the outer 11% over lap as 6 sides makes a total of 12% overlap but we fail to realize the overlap so it's like 11.11% of Overlap in effect)



 

Quote from: rottingroom on January 19, 2014, 09:16:58 AM

Quote from: Sculelos on January 19, 2014, 08:48:35 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on January 19, 2014, 07:59:22 AM

Quote

A supported and factual claim of Earth shape can only be made by FEers.

Great. Please provide some facts that show without a doubt the earth is flat.

The Earth can be mapped to 360 degrees. 360 degrees only works on a Rectangular Map.

You really need to provide an explanation here. What are you saying?

Basically I'm saying that if 360 degrees is what a compass maps to (And it is) if you tried to follow a globe with compass navigation you would over correct and be off about 14.6% per direction change.

Also on a Spherical Earth it would only take 314.16 Degrees to make a full Circle but we know in real life it takes 360 degrees to make a full circle. 400 Degrees makes a Square but if you map 360 degrees into 400 degrees you will be always uniformly 1.1111111111111111111111111111111% off direction but the kicker is so will the compass so you will always stay in line with what direction you are going even though once you make 9 Full 90 Degree turns (Circle the World) you will have navigated 810 degrees minus 1 degree per side so 801 degrees meaning that the Earth must be Two squares side by side exactly as shown in this map. (However as we are humans we will never see 360 degrees as Square but as Circle as we will never see the outer 11% over lap as 6 sides makes a total of 12% overlap but we fail to realize the overlap so it's like 11.11% of Overlap in effect)

What the f***?

 A compass just points north. That's all it does. There is no over correction. If you are standing at 180°W and you move (on any line of latitude that isn't the equator) to 175°W but never physically turn the compass (keeping in mind that ever so slightly you would have turned a bit) then so too would the compass. This is irrelevant though because as you travel from point A to B there is no precision instruments forcing you to make sure that you travel in an absolute straight line.

Plus, 400°? What?

90+90+90+90=360

Period.

Why does Sch have to copy or distort every picture and write meaningless words?  A circle is defined as 360deg.

I will try relaying that to the qualified science instructor who made the quote.  He stood in front of the class and dropped a ball saying "it is not a scientific truth that the ball will hit the ground" and followed with "because there is no truth in science".

Oh... I see.  Like many flat earthers here, you consistently shift the goal posts whenever you're backed into a corner.

You originally said "Any qualified science instructor" etc.  And "any" of course implies "all".  But now you only have evidence that one single science teacher said this.  Big difference.  You've also misinterpreted what the guy was getting at anyway.

He was simply attempting (although poorly) to clarify that scientific theories—not hypotheses—were subject to constant reassessment and amendment as science advanced through time.  He wasn't admitting to any untruths in science in the literal sense—as you've taken it to be.

I'm afraid that this diagram means absolutely nothing to me without some form of explanatory notes.

As a round earther, I contend that only a circle can contain 360º as per this diagram:
 



 
If you spin this 2-dimensional representation on its "Y" axis through 360º you'll effectively create a 3-dimensional model of the earth, and then the locus of the points on the circle become lines of latitude.  This simple diagram illustrates perfectly the logical arrangement of a spherical globe, plus the ease of creating it.  The flat earth "model" has no similar geometric construction.
 
 

As a round earther, I contend that only a circle can contain 360º as per this diagram:

What is this protractor measuring on its outer scale then?

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 20, 2014, 04:11:34 AM

As a round earther, I contend that only a circle can contain 360º as per this diagram:

What is this protractor measuring on its outer scale then?

Thank you.  This proves my point about the 360º circle.  You'll note the distortions of the spacing of the degree markings on the perimeter of the protractor.  They're closer at the X and Y axes and wider at the corners.  That's because a square protractor is only a convenient but distorted representation of reality.  On a circular (or true) protractor, all the markings are equi-spaced—as they are in the real world scenario.


[EDIT: spelling... ouch]

I don't remember learning that being evenly spaced is a requirement for measuring in degrees.  In fact, something being 10 degrees wide to your sight means different things depending on the distance it is away from you.  A large truck that is far away from you could measure 10 from your point of view and so could a tree trunk that is much closer to you. 

I don't remember learning that being evenly spaced is a requirement for measuring in degrees.

 

You may not remember it, but it's a fact nevertheless.  Each degree measured radially from an X-Y origin (as per my diagram) is exactly identical.  And a  circle is divided radially into 360 equal degrees.  It's one of the most basics of geometrical theories.

In fact, something being 10 degrees wide to you site means different things depending on the distance it is away from you.  A large truck that is far away from you could measure 10 from your point of view and so could a tree trunk that is much closer to you.

You're talking about a different concept now.  Namely, subtended angles.  Totally different thing.

Quote from: jroa on January 20, 2014, 04:35:53 AM

I don't remember learning that being evenly spaced is a requirement for measuring in degrees.

 

You may not remember it, but it's a fact nevertheless.  Each degree measured radially from an X-Y origin (as per my diagram) is exactly identical.  And a  circle is divided radially into 360 equal degrees.  It's one of the most basics of geometrical theories.

Quote

In fact, something being 10 degrees wide to you site means different things depending on the distance it is away from you.  A large truck that is far away from you could measure 10 from your point of view and so could a tree trunk that is much closer to you.

You're talking about a different concept now.  Namely, subtended angles.  Totally different thing.

You are confusing linear measurement with angular measurement.  A degree is a measurement for an angle, and angles do not keep the same linear distance between the lines or rays as you move away from the vertex of the angle.  10 degrees 1 inch from the vertex is smaller than 10 degrees 10 inches from the vertex, yet they are both 10 degrees. 

You are confusing linear measurement with angular measurement.

Nope.  Linear measurements (and their units) are totally different to angular measurements (and their units).  I'm guessing it's you who's confusing mathematical terminology.

A degree is a measurement for an angle, and angles do not keep the same linear distance between the lines or rays as you move away from the vertex of the angle.

 

The measurement of angles has nothing to do with any form of linear measurement.  An angle is an absolute unit of measurement and never varies.

10 degrees 1 inch from the vertex is smaller than 10 degrees 10 inches from the vertex, yet they are both 10 degrees.

This is not only incorrect geometrically, but also nonsensical.  The term you're looking for is "enclosed angle" and which doesn't vary measured an inch from the vertex, or 100 miles from the vertex.

Now I am confused.  You said that only a circle has 360 degrees, and that my rectangular protractor was only a convenient representation because the lines were not evenly spaced, yet, now you say the spacing of the lines is irrelevant because angular measurement has nothing to do with the actual spacing, which is what I was saying from the start. 

Why do I feel like we are going in circles here? 

This is basic school maths, why do you not understand?

Now I am confused.  You said that only a circle has 360 degrees, and that my rectangular protractor was only a convenient representation because the lines were not evenly spaced, yet, now you say the spacing of the lines is irrelevant because angular measurement has nothing to do with the actual spacing, which is what I was saying from the start. 

I guess the wider spacings of the degree marks on your square protractor's corners are what you're referring to when you talk about the angle "increasing" as you move away from the X-Y origin.  Obviously the perimeter of the square is not a constant distance from the X-Y origin, whereas a circle's perimeter obviously is (and hence the equally-spaced marks).

I think it's just a matter of terminology here; I think we're actually in agreement on the geometry itself.

I guess the wider spacings of the degree marks on your square protractor's corners are what you're referring to when you talk about the angle "increasing" as you move away from the X-Y origin. 

I did not say the angle increased.  I was referring to your argument about the linear distance between lines increasing. 

Obviously the perimeter of the square is not a constant distance from the X-Y origin, whereas a circle's perimeter obviously is (and hence the equally-spaced marks).

Obviously. 

I think it's just a matter of terminology here; I think we're actually in agreement on the geometry itself.

I think so.  Can we now agree that your statement that only a circle has 360 degrees was either in error, or could be interpreted as being in error? 

I think so.  Can we now agree that your statement that only a circle has 360 degrees was either in error, or could be interpreted as being in error?
 

Nope.  Sorry.  And I'm gonna have to ramble on a bit here.....

Firstly, the term degree is derived from the Babylonian base 60 numerical system.  Hours and minutes are similarly divided into 60s (of course, there are minutes of time and minutes of angle—there are 60 minutes in a degree, and, similarly, there are seconds of time and seconds of degree—there are 60 seconds in a minute, 3,600 in a degree).

Rather than degrees though, more important is the radian.  There are precisely 2pi radians in a circle, where pi is of course the ratio of the circumference to its diameter

And to answer your next logical question as to why the radian is defined as 2pi in a circle—considering that this number is not even an integer...
 
The reason is that the radian satisfies certain properties, such that trigonometry and calculus are made easier when you let angles be measured in radians.  The underlying idea is that the circumference of a circle of radius 1 is 2pi.  So in a circle of radius 1, one radian subtends an arc length of exactly 1.  This makes measuring arc length equivalent to measuring angle. Similarly, in a circle of radius 1, pi radians (which, by the way, equals 180º), subtends an arc length of pi.

I hope this is not too confusing (but probably is?) but it's just that mathematicians and astronomers usually define arcs of circles in radians rather than degrees.

Check this out:
 
 

 
 

Wow, thanks.  I could not have derailed this thread any better.  Cheers!

Now, do you feel like getting back on topic, or do you really want to have a debate over radians versus degrees versus mils?  I did not like Calculus when I took it in college, but I will oblige you if that is the path you want to take. 

Wow, thanks.  I could not have derailed this thread any better.  Cheers!

I should remind you that the OP said "When people tell me they think the Earth is round I almost want to burst into laughter".

As such, you'll have noticed that both a round earth, and a round sun appear in my little diagram.  Is there a problem?

I did not like Calculus when I took it in college, but I will oblige you if that is the path you want to take.

Uh..... this is nothing to do with calculus.