Round Earthers agree

  • 117 Replies
  • 8748 Views
?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #60 on: March 08, 2014, 03:20:04 PM »
I don't need to do that because it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
It does not prove anything to you, but it does to me.
It proves to me simple experiments are important. It shows me in real life horizon curvature is an illusion.
It shows me any photo of curvature should include a straight edge.
To experiment with a straight edge costs nothing.
To put a straight edge in a photo costs nothing and is easy to do.


« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 03:39:00 PM by tappet »

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #61 on: March 08, 2014, 03:39:19 PM »
But the experiment has to be appropriate to the research you're conducting...

It would be like me putting my GTA on a Dyno to measure its horsepower, so that I prove that the car is Italian.  Or Black.. or that it has a nice stereo..

We missing the mark a bit.

To test the earths curvature you need to be

a)  in space and take a photo
b) Take a U2 up and compare the curvature to a ruler in the cruise at 70,000 feet...
c) Take two sticks and measure their shadows
d) observe the moon exclipse and the shape of the earths shadow
e) Measure the glove using Spherical trigonometry - you'll find they are the only triangles that work on the globe
f) Watch a ship disappear over the horizen - it's only 3 kms form you at sea level.. and Ive been at sea thousands of times over the years and I can tell you they do sink.
g) Build a pendulum and watch it rotate...
h) Observe our seasons
i) Observe our time zones
j) Measure variations in gravity around the planet
k) Look at a photo taken from the Apollo Missions
l) The occurrence of noon (i.e. meridian passage of true Sun) isn't simultaneous for two observers situated along an east-west line. In other words, Sunrise and Sunset are not simultaneous for two distant observers
m) The fact that a horizen actually exists - you can see it.
n) You can launch a weather balloon, with a couple of cameras attached..


So there's a few ways you could properly confirm or debunk the shape of our planet, all of which have a direct relationship to the research being undertaken.

HTH.


PS - This is a conclusive test you can do yourself..

1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" an half-finished square.



?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2014, 03:55:33 PM »
PS - This is a conclusive test you can do yourself..

1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" an half-finished square.



Hate to put a damper on this, but each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns... An easier way would be to pick 3 points as far apart as possible, but still within sight of each other, and measure the horizontal angles between each. That may not be very clear... Lets see if I can clarify: on a map, the 3 points would form the corners of a triangle, and on a flat piece of paper, the 3 angles would add to exactly 180°. What you would be measuring in the real world would be whether those 3 angles actually do add to exactly 180°, or whether they add to >180°. If they add to >180°, then you live on a globe.
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."

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2014, 03:58:31 PM »
PS - This is a conclusive test you can do yourself..

1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" an half-finished square.



Hate to put a damper on this, but each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns... An easier way would be to pick 3 points as far apart as possible, but still within sight of each other, and measure the horizontal angles between each. That may not be very clear... Lets see if I can clarify: on a map, the 3 points would form the corners of a triangle, and on a flat piece of paper, the 3 angles would add to exactly 180°. What you would be measuring in the real world would be whether those 3 angles actually do add to exactly 180°, or whether they add to >180°. If they add to >180°, then you live on a globe.

Look I never said it would be easy and imagine the level of satisfaction he'd have after doing it!  ;D ;D ;D

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2014, 04:11:27 PM »
Which map would you be using ?.
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #65 on: March 08, 2014, 04:12:54 PM »
But the experiment has to be appropriate to the research you're conducting...

It would be like me putting my GTA on a Dyno to measure its horsepower, so that I prove that the car is Italian.  Or Black.. or that it has a nice stereo..

We missing the mark a bit.

To test the earths curvature you need to be

a)  in space and take a photo
b) Take a U2 up and compare the curvature to a ruler in the cruise at 70,000 feet...
c) Take two sticks and measure their shadows
d) observe the moon exclipse and the shape of the earths shadow
e) Measure the glove using Spherical trigonometry - you'll find they are the only triangles that work on the globe
f) Watch a ship disappear over the horizen - it's only 3 kms form you at sea level.. and Ive been at sea thousands of times over the years and I can tell you they do sink.
g) Build a pendulum and watch it rotate...
h) Observe our seasons
i) Observe our time zones
j) Measure variations in gravity around the planet
k) Look at a photo taken from the Apollo Missions
l) The occurrence of noon (i.e. meridian passage of true Sun) isn't simultaneous for two observers situated along an east-west line. In other words, Sunrise and Sunset are not simultaneous for two distant observers
m) The fact that a horizen actually exists - you can see it.
n) You can launch a weather balloon, with a couple of cameras attached..


So there's a few ways you could properly confirm or debunk the shape of our planet, all of which have a direct relationship to the research being undertaken.

HTH.


PS - This is a conclusive test you can do yourself..

1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" an half-finished square.



You are missing my point.
My point is I would like to experiment myself. To do this I need to start with a solid foundation.
The FEers seem to all agree that you cannot see curvature  running left to right whilst standing on a beach, so no problem here.
But the REers are divided and cannot agree with each other.
What is the problem? I thought you guy's had it all worked out. Obviously not otherwise you would not be divided.

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2014, 04:16:40 PM »

Look I never said it would be easy and imagine the level of satisfaction he'd have after doing it!  ;D ;D ;D
I have a spare straight edge if you need one.

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #67 on: March 08, 2014, 04:25:13 PM »
But the experiment has to be appropriate to the research you're conducting...

It would be like me putting my GTA on a Dyno to measure its horsepower, so that I prove that the car is Italian.  Or Black.. or that it has a nice stereo..

We missing the mark a bit.

To test the earths curvature you need to be

a)  in space and take a photo
b) Take a U2 up and compare the curvature to a ruler in the cruise at 70,000 feet...
c) Take two sticks and measure their shadows
d) observe the moon exclipse and the shape of the earths shadow
e) Measure the glove using Spherical trigonometry - you'll find they are the only triangles that work on the globe
f) Watch a ship disappear over the horizen - it's only 3 kms form you at sea level.. and Ive been at sea thousands of times over the years and I can tell you they do sink.
g) Build a pendulum and watch it rotate...
h) Observe our seasons
i) Observe our time zones
j) Measure variations in gravity around the planet
k) Look at a photo taken from the Apollo Missions
l) The occurrence of noon (i.e. meridian passage of true Sun) isn't simultaneous for two observers situated along an east-west line. In other words, Sunrise and Sunset are not simultaneous for two distant observers
m) The fact that a horizen actually exists - you can see it.
n) You can launch a weather balloon, with a couple of cameras attached..


So there's a few ways you could properly confirm or debunk the shape of our planet, all of which have a direct relationship to the research being undertaken.

HTH.


PS - This is a conclusive test you can do yourself..

1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" an half-finished square.



You are missing my point.
My point is I would like to experiment myself. To do this I need to start with a solid foundation.
The FEers seem to all agree that you cannot see curvature  running left to right whilst standing on a beach, so no problem here.
But the REers are divided and cannot agree with each other.
What is the problem? I thought you guy's had it all worked out. Obviously not otherwise you would not be divided.

We are divided because we can't know everything.. but that doesn't meant the science doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question65.htm
http://www.howitworksdaily.com/space/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

I'm sure if we discussed quantum mechanics, even experts in the field would have differing stances on the subject.

We are not scientists, but REers do respect the scientific method and can test many things themselves if they need personal confirmation..  I have given you some ideas on how to run a round earth experiment..

Going to the beach will not tell you anything.. Unless you want to prove that we cannot measure the curvature of a sphere with  a circumference of 40,000 kms from the beach.. Again, it would be like testing the acidity of a cup of coffee by measuring how long you can hold your breath.. its meaningless.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2014, 04:27:41 PM »
Which map would you be using ?.

Makes no difference. All you need is 3 points, as far apart as possible while still being within sight of each other, and measure the horizontal angles between them with a theodolite (should have pointed that out before, sorry). If those 3 angles add to any more than 180°, then you're almost certainly living on a globe.
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."

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2014, 04:34:37 PM »
I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)   
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 04:36:28 PM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #70 on: March 08, 2014, 04:39:59 PM »

Going to the beach will not tell you anything..
That's funny it's the REers that told me to go to the beach in the first place to learn.
Now your saying its a waste of time. I am getting fed up with REers dicking me around.
The REer says 'put up a straight edge you will see curvature" I did. Guess what there was no curvature.
Now the REers are saying don't go to the beach and straight edges are no good.

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #71 on: March 08, 2014, 04:50:50 PM »

Going to the beach will not tell you anything..
That's funny it's the REers that told me to go to the beach in the first place to learn.
Now your saying its a waste of time. I am getting fed up with REers dicking me around.
The REer says 'put up a straight edge you will see curvature" I did. Guess what there was no curvature.
Now the REers are saying don't go to the beach and straight edges are no good.

So what?  Ask any female what the correct race technique in a car is, you'll get differing answers.. does it mean there is NO race technique?  No, it just means they don't know.

It seems a bit strange to me that you think you're debunking a widely accepted theory, one that can be measured in hundreds of different ways just because some people are not experts on the subject.

You're suffering from 'target fixation'.

So those that told you that you can use a ruler to confirm a straight horizen may be wrong.. but it does not discount the mountains of evidence, some of which you can check for yourself, that the earth is a sphere.

How about you move on?


Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #72 on: March 08, 2014, 04:55:07 PM »
Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #73 on: March 08, 2014, 04:56:51 PM »
Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?

No, how about you fuck off.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #74 on: March 08, 2014, 05:01:04 PM »
I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)

Have you ever tried to stick a flat piece of paper to a spherical surface? I'm guessing not, based on this comment.

Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?

"Area mass"? WTF??

How about you get a foam ball, a rubber band, and 3 push pins. Push the pins into the ball so that the rubber band goes around the three without any slack, then measure the three angles and add them up.
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."

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #75 on: March 08, 2014, 05:04:50 PM »

Going to the beach will not tell you anything..
That's funny it's the REers that told me to go to the beach in the first place to learn.
Now your saying its a waste of time. I am getting fed up with REers dicking me around.
The REer says 'put up a straight edge you will see curvature" I did. Guess what there was no curvature.
Now the REers are saying don't go to the beach and straight edges are no good.

So what?  Ask any female what the correct race technique in a car is, you'll get differing answers.. does it mean there is NO race technique?  No, it just means they don't know.

It seems a bit strange to me that you think you're debunking a widely accepted theory, one that can be measured in hundreds of different ways just because some people are not experts on the subject.

You're suffering from 'target fixation'.

So those that told you that you can use a ruler to confirm a straight horizen may be wrong.. but it does not discount the mountains of evidence, some of which you can check for yourself, that the earth is a sphere.

How about you move on?


I wont and cannot "move on" until it is acknowledged that left to right curvature of the horizon whilst standing on a beach is an illusion and can be straightened out with a straight edge.
I am gobsmacked to think a REer  will not even try this.

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #76 on: March 08, 2014, 05:10:43 PM »
I am gobsmacked that you will not test the temperature of a pot of water by picking your nose... ::)

Seems so simple..

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #77 on: March 08, 2014, 05:25:40 PM »
I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)

Have you ever tried to stick a flat piece of paper to a spherical surface? I'm guessing not, based on this comment.

Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?

"Area mass"? WTF??

How about you get a foam ball, a rubber band, and 3 push pins. Push the pins into the ball so that the rubber band goes around the three without any slack, then measure the three angles and add them up.
concave same result. your point is ? Its simple to figure out, cut a triangle out of a piece of paper. convex it or concave it ,same mass, same degrees, same result. Which do you  claim proves your conclusive sphere?       
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 05:27:41 PM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #78 on: March 08, 2014, 05:37:21 PM »
I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)

Have you ever tried to stick a flat piece of paper to a spherical surface? I'm guessing not, based on this comment.

Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?

"Area mass"? WTF??

How about you get a foam ball, a rubber band, and 3 push pins. Push the pins into the ball so that the rubber band goes around the three without any slack, then measure the three angles and add them up.
concave same result. your point is ? Its simple to figure out, cut a triangle out of a piece of paper. convex it or concave it ,same mass, same degrees, same result. Which do you  claim proves your conclusive sphere?     

The problem with your paper triangle is that, as soon as you try to wrap it around a spherical surface (or press it inside one), the edges get wrinkled together, which means they no longer follow 'great circle' paths, completely nullifying your example.
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."

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #79 on: March 08, 2014, 06:50:30 PM »
I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)

Have you ever tried to stick a flat piece of paper to a spherical surface? I'm guessing not, based on this comment.

Would you like to tell me sirwankalot if the area mass of the two identical triangles have changed between that pasted on the out side of the bowl & that pasted on the inside. or their degrees ?

"Area mass"? WTF??

How about you get a foam ball, a rubber band, and 3 push pins. Push the pins into the ball so that the rubber band goes around the three without any slack, then measure the three angles and add them up.
concave same result. your point is ? Its simple to figure out, cut a triangle out of a piece of paper. convex it or concave it ,same mass, same degrees, same result. Which do you  claim proves your conclusive sphere?     

The problem with your paper triangle is that, as soon as you try to wrap it around a spherical surface (or press it inside one), the edges get wrinkled together, which means they no longer follow 'great circle' paths, completely nullifying your example.
Thin paper moistened suffices to demonstrate. But if you want to be pedantic. then do away with the paper . your three points will give you the same result convex or concave. it being a complete mirrored reversal. same mass, same degrees ,same result, care to tell me how your three points would give you a different out come being convex or it being  concave. ?           
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #80 on: March 08, 2014, 07:12:10 PM »
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)   

…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
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."

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #81 on: March 08, 2014, 08:21:07 PM »
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)   

…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
LOL how is it proving  the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for  the  surface of the earth  to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims  it proves the earth is indisputably  spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are  two options obtainable from the same  equation you present.     
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 08:24:00 PM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #82 on: March 08, 2014, 08:41:02 PM »
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)   

…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
LOL how is it proving  the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for  the  surface of the earth  to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims  it proves the earth is indisputably  spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are  two options obtainable from the same  equation you present.   

Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
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."

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #83 on: March 08, 2014, 09:51:40 PM »
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)   

…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
LOL how is it proving  the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for  the  surface of the earth  to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims  it proves the earth is indisputably  spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are  two options obtainable from the same  equation you present.   

Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world  NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot. 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 09:53:50 PM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #84 on: March 08, 2014, 10:41:59 PM »
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)   

…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
LOL how is it proving  the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for  the  surface of the earth  to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims  it proves the earth is indisputably  spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are  two options obtainable from the same  equation you present.   

Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world  NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.

We have another Skepti here by the looks of it.. Might not be worth engaging...

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #85 on: March 08, 2014, 10:47:20 PM »
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)   

…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
LOL how is it proving  the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for  the  surface of the earth  to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims  it proves the earth is indisputably  spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are  two options obtainable from the same  equation you present.   

Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world  NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.

We have another Skepti here by the looks of it.. Might not be worth engaging...

Agreed... To miss such a simple point by such a wide margin takes a special kind of talent.
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."

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #86 on: March 08, 2014, 11:11:49 PM »
I am gobsmacked that you will not test the temperature of a pot of water by picking your nose... ::)

Seems so simple..
OK I have picked my nose and tried to test the temperature of a pot of water.
Now have you taken a straight edge to your curved horizon. Or are you going to keep speculating about what's going on.

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #87 on: March 08, 2014, 11:18:18 PM »
I am gobsmacked that you will not test the temperature of a pot of water by picking your nose... ::)

Seems so simple..
OK I have picked my nose and tried to test the temperature of a pot of water.
Now have you taken a straight edge to your curved horizon. Or are you going to keep speculating about what's going on.

Haha! :)

Touche... but.. did it work?

No I haven't.. I live 1 hour 30 mins from the coast, but I am moving back to the beach in a few weeks (Thank god!), I'll do it then :)

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #88 on: March 08, 2014, 11:35:05 PM »
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)   

…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
LOL how is it proving  the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for  the  surface of the earth  to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims  it proves the earth is indisputably  spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are  two options obtainable from the same  equation you present.   

Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world  NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.

We have another Skepti here by the looks of it.. Might not be worth engaging...

Agreed... To miss such a simple point by such a wide margin takes a special kind of talent.
I didn't miss your point. just pointing out a flaw in your  presumption. which returns you back to there being  two possibility. if I filled a bowl with corn flakes & they piled higher then the rim of the bowl in the centre, then I added milk .  that doesn't proves the curvature is convex. What if we flipped that second referencing your insisting on & applied it the opposite way. lets say  the lowest depth of the ocean same measurement in depth as the mounded corn flakes & then filled it with the corn flakes & milk.still doesn't  prove a convex. concave seems  more likely.         
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

*

glokta

  • 598
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #89 on: March 09, 2014, 01:47:20 AM »
Convex or concave, either one will still end up curved in some way, making this comment…

I have a piece of paper, a pair of scissors & a bowl I can loan you. Cut your self out two identical  triangles. pasted one on the inside of the bowl & one on the outside. That seems  a wasted 30,000 km walk if your trying to prove a sphere . ::)   

…look rather silly, as either way, it's still proving a sphere.
LOL how is it proving  the earth to be conclusively a sphere. The same probability exists from the same results , for  the  surface of the earth  to be dished & not a sphere. Your hypothesis claims  it proves the earth is indisputably  spherical. Which it does none of the sort, as there are  two options obtainable from the same  equation you present.   

Inside (concave), or outside (convex), it's still a sphere (roughly). With the addition of a second measurement, such as the apparent height of a distant mountain, it can be determined that we are on the outside of that sphere.
Well that's logical & makes all the sense in the world  NOT!. my plants growing in their dished pots must be growing on the out side of a sphere & I'm just seeing an optical illusion that their not. How dare they protrude higher then the dished pot.

We have another Skepti here by the looks of it.. Might not be worth engaging...

Agreed... To miss such a simple point by such a wide margin takes a special kind of talent.
I didn't miss your point. just pointing out a flaw in your  presumption. which returns you back to there being  two possibility. if I filled a bowl with corn flakes & they piled higher then the rim of the bowl in the centre, then I added milk .  that doesn't proves the curvature is convex. What if we flipped that second referencing your insisting on & applied it the opposite way. lets say  the lowest depth of the ocean same measurement in depth as the mounded corn flakes & then filled it with the corn flakes & milk.still doesn't  prove a convex. concave seems  more likely.       
Sounds more like the reason you still have to wear a bib and make a mess with your cereal. "I'm redefining the world mummy!", "Clean that cereal up! It's time for your medicine and bible study! Don't make me get the hose!"
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 01:49:13 AM by glokta »
Quote from: sceptimatic
Use your brain. There is no sun in space. You are simply duped.