Round Earthers agree

  • 117 Replies
  • 8746 Views
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #90 on: March 09, 2014, 03:32:08 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!"
OWWW What was that wine you just served up. oh sourer grapes ? 
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…:

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #91 on: March 09, 2014, 04:03:54 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.       
Demonstrate how the Earth could be concave.
I know I don't see Earth when I look, angled slightly up, straight forward.
I would also imagine the geography to be much different.
There would be a central great ocean where all the water in the world eventually ends up.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #92 on: March 09, 2014, 10:51:06 AM »
Next time you go to the beach take a long straight edge and something to stabilize it at both ends.


You really need to get over this "straight edge" thing my friend.

You're starting to sound a little paranoid LOL.
 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #93 on: March 09, 2014, 10:56:34 AM »

Hate to put a damper on this, but each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns...

And I hate to put a damper on your damper, but geometrically-speaking, this is totally incorrect.  The length of the sides of the triangle are totally immaterial.  BTW, where did you grab that 10,000km distance from?  Samuel Rowbotham's ENaG text book LOL.
 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #94 on: March 09, 2014, 11:08:31 AM »

How about you move on?

At the end of the day—regardless of tappet's straightedge fixation—it's up to him to disprove the virtual mountains of scientific and mathematical and astronomical evidence that's already proved, using 100 different methodologies, that our planet is in actuality an oblate spheroid.

Basic high school logic says that it's a task for the proponent of a new notion that's at odds with the accepted science to provide evidence in support of that notion

And I'm sorry tappet, but you can hardly expect the Stephen Hawkings of this world to accept a couple of snapshots taken of a straightedge at the local beach as... uh... convincing evidence can you?

Also, you don't seem to understand that it's not just a handful of us round earthers on this forum you have to convince;  it's the 6,000,000 scientist all across the planet that accept the current earth model as the only one.
 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #95 on: March 09, 2014, 11:10:07 AM »
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 ?

Please do not use crude insults based on members name's in you comments.

Consider this a warning.
 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #96 on: March 09, 2014, 11:28:38 AM »
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.

This comment makes absolutely no sense from a scientific standpoint.  In fact, each of your claims relies on an artificial, abstract set of properties about physical entities that simply don't (and can't) perform as you claim they do.  No person on earth can get a geometrically "flat" piece of paper (or any other material) to adhere perfectly to a spherical object without distorting the paper.

This fanciful concept of yours in fact actually aids the round earth argument, rather than the flat earth argument—if you think about Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. 

Presumably you can accept the geometry that defines a triangle containing three 90º angles?
 

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #97 on: March 09, 2014, 12:56:18 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 ?

Please do not use crude insults based on members name's in you comments.

Consider this a warning.

Please don't impersonate a mod.
I would consider this a warning, but the worst I could do if you don't listen is... nothing.

It's clear that ol' Charlie does not understand non-Euclidean geometry.

And Aus, Scintific has a point, though not sure where he got that perfectly round number.
For a triple-right triangle, the sides of the triangle would have to be pretty god damn long.
Though theoretically, you could get an interior angle sum of greater than 180 degrees at (theoretically) any distance.
Given the tools we as average citizens have to measure, the sides would still have to be pretty long.
It would be easier to make 90 degree turns and see where you end up.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Sorry about the shitty diagram, only access to MS Paint at the moment.
You get the idea.
The black arrow is where you'll be if it's flat.
The red is round.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 01:15:04 PM by th3rm0m3t3r0 »


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #98 on: March 09, 2014, 02:11:02 PM »

Hate to put a damper on this, but each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns...

And I hate to put a damper on your damper, but geometrically-speaking, this is totally incorrect.  The length of the sides of the triangle are totally immaterial.  BTW, where did you grab that 10,000km distance from?  Samuel Rowbotham's ENaG text book LOL.

For the corners of the triangle to each be 90°, the sides have to be 1/4 the circumference of the sphere, otherwise it won't work. In the case of the earth, the circumference is ~40,001km, 1/4 of which is ~10,000.

I am a 'roundy' mate, and an Aussie, it might pay to double check before attacking someone. :)
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."

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #99 on: March 09, 2014, 02:36:03 PM »
For the corners of the triangle to each be 90°, the sides have to be 1/4 the circumference of the sphere, otherwise it won't work.

Perfectly true, but immaterial to this specific proposal for a 270º triangle.


Quote
In the case of the earth, the circumference is ~40,001km, 1/4 of which is ~10,000.
Again perfectly true, but again immaterial to the proposal.  It works (obviously) with any sized sphere.

I certainly made no mention of the earth, as such, in my comment, nor did SirSpankalot.  We were both speaking about a theoretical sphere.  It was you who incorrectly assumed we were talking specifically about the earth, because you said "each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns".   And that comment is incorrect in the context of a discussion about geometry, and only serves to potentially confuse the flat earthers.

So it might pay you to "double check" others' comments  before "attacking" other people yourself.

And frankly I don't give a rat's arse whether you're an Aussie or an Outer Mongolian.  Makes no difference to me.  The facts of the matter are all that count here.
 

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #100 on: March 09, 2014, 02:44:39 PM »
For the corners of the triangle to each be 90°, the sides have to be 1/4 the circumference of the sphere, otherwise it won't work.

Perfectly true, but immaterial to this specific proposal for a 270º triangle.


Quote
In the case of the earth, the circumference is ~40,001km, 1/4 of which is ~10,000.
Again perfectly true, but again immaterial to the proposal.  It works (obviously) with any sized sphere.

I certainly made no mention of the earth, as such, in my comment, nor did SirSpankalot.  We were both speaking about a theoretical sphere.  It was you who incorrectly assumed we were talking specifically about the earth, because you said "each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns".   And that comment is incorrect in the context of a discussion about geometry, and only serves to potentially confuse the flat earthers.

So it might pay you to "double check" others' comments  before "attacking" other people yourself.

And frankly I don't give a rat's arse whether you're an Aussie or an Outer Mongolian.  Makes no difference to me.  The facts of the matter are all that count here.

My apologies Geoff, I assumed that the earth was the subject of the discussion. Still, it might be worth noting that the 270° triangle does only work if each leg is 1/4 the circumference of the sphere in question (which you didn't do). I never intended to come off as 'attacking' anyone, I was only trying to help because I've seen this example go sour before due to a lack of specific details.
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 #101 on: March 09, 2014, 02:52:33 PM »
Next time you go to the beach take a long straight edge and something to stabilize it at both ends.


You really need to get over this "straight edge" thing my friend.

You're starting to sound a little paranoid LOL.
Show me your curved horizon photo with a straight edge to prove me wrong.
Honestly it is an easy task to try.
Although it does require removing butt from armchair.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 03:55:40 PM by tappet »

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #102 on: March 09, 2014, 03:52:49 PM »

My apologies Geoff, I assumed that the earth was the subject of the discussion. Still, it might be worth noting that the 270° triangle does only work if each leg is 1/4 the circumference of the sphere in question (which you didn't do). I never intended to come off as 'attacking' anyone, I was only trying to help because I've seen this example go sour before due to a lack of specific details.

No worries.   :)

And yes, you're correct.  I didn't mention the 1/4 circumference issue.  I was guessing that this sort of maths isn't your average FE's forté.  And the FEs aren't' gonna accept either of our claims anyway, so in the long run it'll end up a moot point LOL.
 

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #103 on: March 09, 2014, 04:08:54 PM »
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.

This comment makes absolutely no sense from a scientific standpoint.  In fact, each of your claims relies on an artificial, abstract set of properties about physical entities that simply don't (and can't) perform as you claim they do.  No person on earth can get a geometrically "flat" piece of paper (or any other material) to adhere perfectly to a spherical object without distorting the paper.

This fanciful concept of yours in fact actually aids the round earth argument, rather than the flat earth argument—if you think about Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. 

Presumably you can accept the geometry that defines a triangle containing three 90º angles?
I think its you that seems to have a problem with triangles & geometry , three 90 degrees angels add up to 260 degrees & not the required 180 degrees.  The point of the edge of the paper distorting proves that if you require three 90 degree angels. Then it not possible to make a sphere were all edges of the triangle will match up point to point with out gaps or over lapping.   
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…:

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #104 on: March 09, 2014, 04:37:20 PM »
I think its you that seems to have a problem with triangles & geometry, three 90 degrees angels add up to 260 degrees & not the required 180 degrees.     

And Charles reckons I need to check my maths LOL.

Check out non-Euclidean geometry mate and get back to us.
 



Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #105 on: March 09, 2014, 05:03:01 PM »
For the corners of the triangle to each be 90°, the sides have to be 1/4 the circumference of the sphere, otherwise it won't work.

Perfectly true, but immaterial to this specific proposal for a 270º triangle.


Quote
In the case of the earth, the circumference is ~40,001km, 1/4 of which is ~10,000.
Again perfectly true, but again immaterial to the proposal.  It works (obviously) with any sized sphere.

I certainly made no mention of the earth, as such, in my comment, nor did SirSpankalot.  We were both speaking about a theoretical sphere.  It was you who incorrectly assumed we were talking specifically about the earth, because you said "each leg has to be 10,000km if you're going to have 90° turns".   And that comment is incorrect in the context of a discussion about geometry, and only serves to potentially confuse the flat earthers.

So it might pay you to "double check" others' comments  before "attacking" other people yourself.

And frankly I don't give a rat's arse whether you're an Aussie or an Outer Mongolian.  Makes no difference to me.  The facts of the matter are all that count here.

My apologies Geoff, I assumed that the earth was the subject of the discussion. Still, it might be worth noting that the 270° triangle does only work if each leg is 1/4 the circumference of the sphere in question (which you didn't do). I never intended to come off as 'attacking' anyone, I was only trying to help because I've seen this example go sour before due to a lack of specific details.

You were right, I was referring to the earth so I still stand corrected.


Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #106 on: March 09, 2014, 09:16:09 PM »
I think its you that seems to have a problem with triangles & geometry, three 90 degrees angels add up to 260 degrees & not the required 180 degrees.     

And Charles reckons I need to check my maths LOL.

Check out non-Euclidean geometry mate and get back to us.
Oh you mean my error made of 260, when it should be 270. Its was a get out of jail free card.  ;) :) Don't ever say I'm not christen. 
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 09:19:34 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…:

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #107 on: March 10, 2014, 01:47:19 AM »


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #108 on: March 10, 2014, 01:58:59 AM »
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Chist-en
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…:

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #109 on: March 10, 2014, 02:40:55 AM »
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Chist-en
I don't get it.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #110 on: March 10, 2014, 03:40:21 AM »
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-en
I don't get it.
I dont get danasoft.com ,its only used by those sporting  shrunken testicles & a very small penis. pathetic form of intermediation & an invasion of privacy by third party. I never contracted to when signing up to this forum.  breech of contract mod. Have them remove it.   
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 03:54:27 AM 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…:

*

glokta

  • 598
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #111 on: March 10, 2014, 04:09:14 AM »
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-en
I don't get it.
I dont get danasoft.com ,its only used by those sporting  shrunken testicles & a very small penis. pathetic form of intermediation & an invasion of privacy by third party. I never contracted to when signing up to this forum.  breech of contract mod. Have them remove it.
Problems. So many problems.
Quote from: sceptimatic
Use your brain. There is no sun in space. You are simply duped.

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #112 on: March 10, 2014, 04:17:30 AM »
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-en
I don't get it.
I dont get danasoft.com ,its only used by those sporting  shrunken testicles & a very small penis. pathetic form of intermediation & an invasion of privacy by third party. I never contracted to when signing up to this forum.  breech of contract mod. Have them remove it.

WTF?

Have you taken your meds today?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #113 on: March 11, 2014, 04:59:09 AM »

Oh you mean my error made of 260, when it should be 270. Its was a get out of jail free card.

Charles:  You can edit your posts at any time by clicking on the "modify" icon to the top right of the response dialogue box.  Or delete your post entirely by clicking on the "remove" icon next to it.
 
(If you edit it after others have made new posts quoting your original comments, they'll still appear in their new posts.)
 

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #114 on: March 11, 2014, 06:41:08 AM »
I'm not just playing on the one forum at the one time.  ;) & I'm a shit house one finger tipper . if people are struggling with comprehension of my crap  grammar or I have misspelt something or left a letter out,  I correct it. Shame on me. But thanks for the advice. Have you had ago at trying to get the points or edges of you triangles to meet up ?     
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 06:47:42 AM 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…:

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #115 on: March 11, 2014, 02:32:11 PM »
Don't ever say I'm not christen.
What?
sorry my bad its  a pathetic attempt at sarcastic humour . Christ-en
I don't get it.
I dont get danasoft.com ,its only used by those sporting  shrunken testicles & a very small penis. pathetic form of intermediation & an invasion of privacy by third party. I never contracted to when signing up to this forum.  breech of contract mod. Have them remove it.
And so you resort to ad-hominem attacks, which as a reminder, is actually against forum rules.
I'll have you know I'm in the 96-98 percentile when it comes to penis size.
Since your so good at math, I'm sure you can work out the chances, based on that, that my dick is bigger than yours.
Or don't.
Not my concern.
The only person who can see the information in my sig is you.
Get over it.
If you're still uncomfortable, maybe you should get a proxy or a VPN.
The forum mods can see your IP, and use that to locate you if they really wanted.
I can't.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 02:35:21 PM by th3rm0m3t3r0 »


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #116 on: March 11, 2014, 03:06:26 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.

I don't think you would want to use a theodolite because the lines of sight would most definitely be straight lines. Fortunately for RE's, we are not measuring the angles of the lines of site and are instead measuring the surface of the earth. I don't think measuring this to satisfaction would be as simple as it may seem.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #117 on: March 11, 2014, 03:11:12 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.

I don't think you would want to use a theodolite because the lines of sight would most definitely be straight lines. Fortunately for RE's, we are not measuring the angles of the lines of site and are instead measuring the surface of the earth. I don't think measuring this to satisfaction would be as simple as it may seem.
Come on, rottingroom.
This thread is about penises and insanity now.
Stay on topic.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.