Advice about formula for measurements

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 05:19:34 AM

So, no one on this forum understands what I am talking about?

Everyone on the forum understands perfectly,  the only one who doesn't is yourself,  my conclusion is that you are just deliberately playing dumb.

Prove it!

Please tell me how you measure the UR + DUM (3 + 27 meters = 30 meters) standing on the small beach looking at the ship on sea.
You cannot measure the angle between the front and the back of the ship from where you stand. It is too small.

Back to the question
What is the formula to measure the distance, filling in the data you know, the 10 cm size you see and the 100 meters (length) of the ship? If you need another datum (measurement) what is it and how do you get it?

What is the formula to measure the distance, filling in the data you know, the 10 cm size you see and the 100 meters of the ship. If you need another datum (measurement) how do you get it?

The distance from your eye to whatever you're using to measure. You've been told this before. There are plenty of ways to get it: ruler, finger-measurement...

And I gave you a formula earlier (which does apply because none of the reasons you claimed it wouldn't are remotely true).

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 07:34:30 AM

What is the formula to measure the distance, filling in the data you know, the 10 cm size you see and the 100 meters of the ship. If you need another datum (measurement) how do you get it?

The distance from your eye to whatever you're using to measure. You've been told this before. There are plenty of ways to get it: ruler, finger-measurement...

And I gave you a formula earlier (which does apply because none of the reasons you claimed it wouldn't are remotely true).

Your formula is not correct. The result cannot be true. Think!!!!

Ok, the length of the ship is 10 cm using thumb and finger arm length.
You know that the ship actually is 100 meters long. You can see it is far away, right? About 5 km or more.

So, what is the formula / table with these variables in order to get the distance between you and the ship. The answer must be 5 km or more, right?

Quote from: BiJane on May 29, 2015, 07:38:42 AM

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 07:34:30 AM

What is the formula to measure the distance, filling in the data you know, the 10 cm size you see and the 100 meters of the ship. If you need another datum (measurement) how do you get it?

The distance from your eye to whatever you're using to measure. You've been told this before. There are plenty of ways to get it: ruler, finger-measurement...

And I gave you a formula earlier (which does apply because none of the reasons you claimed it wouldn't are remotely true).

Your formula is not correct. The result cannot be true. Think!!!!

Ok, the length of the ship is 10 cm using thumb and finger arm length.
You know that the ship actually is 100 meters long. You can see it is far away, right? About 5 km or more.

So, what is the formula / table with these variables in order to get the distance between you and the ship. The answer must be 5 km or more, right?

Apparent length = 10 cm at arm's length (call it 50 cm).
Actual length = 100 m.
Distance = 5 km.

Pick any two. Calculate the actual value for the third. Easy.

Aren't you glad you created that redundant thread? Now we can point out your error in two places.

You cannot measure the angle between the front and the back of the ship from where you stand. It is too small.

Yeah you can, using any two sides you know of the triangle formed from your eye to the object you can measure any angle size, even one as tiny as .000000000001^o.

there are proofs, but the "formula" you need for it is sine, cosine and tangent.

Your formula is not correct. The result cannot be true. Think!!!!

Are you going to share why the result isn't true, or are you going for an argument from exclamation marks?
Incredulity is not an argument. Why, specifically, does my method not work?

Ok, the length of the ship is 10 cm using thumb and finger arm length.
You know that the ship actually is 100 meters long. You can see it is far away, right? About 5 km or more.

Do you know how far 5km is?! I've seen a running track that was 100m long, it looks a lot smaller from just 50m away. Test it yourself; you have to know where a running track is. I can promise you, you don't need to be anywhere near 5km away.

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 07:56:17 AM

Your formula is not correct. The result cannot be true. Think!!!!

Are you going to share why the result isn't true, or are you going for an argument from exclamation marks?
Incredulity is not an argument. Why, specifically, does my method not work?

Quote

Ok, the length of the ship is 10 cm using thumb and finger arm length.
You know that the ship actually is 100 meters long. You can see it is far away, right? About 5 km or more.

Do you know how far 5km is?! I've seen a running track that was 100m long, it looks a lot smaller from just 50m away. Test it yourself; you have to know where a running track is. I can promise you, you don't need to be anywhere near 5km away.

Maybe the 10 cm is not right. Probably it should be something like 2 cm

Quote from: BiJane on May 29, 2015, 09:53:53 AM

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 07:56:17 AM

Your formula is not correct. The result cannot be true. Think!!!!

Are you going to share why the result isn't true, or are you going for an argument from exclamation marks?
Incredulity is not an argument. Why, specifically, does my method not work?

Quote

Ok, the length of the ship is 10 cm using thumb and finger arm length.
You know that the ship actually is 100 meters long. You can see it is far away, right? About 5 km or more.

Do you know how far 5km is?! I've seen a running track that was 100m long, it looks a lot smaller from just 50m away. Test it yourself; you have to know where a running track is. I can promise you, you don't need to be anywhere near 5km away.

Maybe the 10 cm is not right. Probably it should be something like 2 cm

Are you actually measuring anything?

Maybe the 10 cm is not right. Probably it should be something like 2 cm

1. How on earth did you mistake the two?!
2. Shrinking by a fifth would give you a very different answer. Assuming 5cm from your face again, in lieu of any new measurement that I've seen, the same process gives a distance of 250m. Bearing in mind, that is still holding the ruler/having your hand absurdly close to your face. Go for a more realistic 10cm away, you'd get 500m.

10 mm at arm's length would be reasonably close. What's a single order of magnitude among friends?

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 29, 2015, 05:17:05 AM

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 04:23:45 AM

Quote from: BiJane on May 29, 2015, 03:40:02 AM

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 03:37:14 AM

I am talking about a real event.

Then your measurements are wrong.

Quote

When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.

When has anyone even so much as hinted otherwise?

Quote

There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size. It's a small beach.

Well you will see it as a different size, by your own admission. Whe has anyone ever said you wouldn't see it any more?

I mean, it's fine if you want to troll, most people here do, but you need to come up with something better than that.

omg, what kind of forum is this?

No one answering up to now does understand this simple question about the size of an object and its distance when you cannot move to a new position.

The calculation has been done before, calculating with different positions, so the formula should be known already.

Anyone reading this and understanding?

You wont get answers  out of theses bastards.  I'm still waiting for one on inertia , air flight times & fuel.

So, no one on this forum understands what I am talking about?

I get what your saying . They get what your saying . Their just not going to understand it because it dosen't fit their spherical spinning dogmatic agenda. You have to realise anyhing that dosen't fit with their dogma Is attacked no mater how credible , failing that they just dont acknowledged it & flat out ignore it .

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 05:19:34 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 29, 2015, 05:17:05 AM

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 04:23:45 AM

Quote from: BiJane on May 29, 2015, 03:40:02 AM

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 03:37:14 AM

I am talking about a real event.

Then your measurements are wrong.

Quote

When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.

When has anyone even so much as hinted otherwise?

Quote

There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size. It's a small beach.

Well you will see it as a different size, by your own admission. Whe has anyone ever said you wouldn't see it any more?

I mean, it's fine if you want to troll, most people here do, but you need to come up with something better than that.

omg, what kind of forum is this?

No one answering up to now does understand this simple question about the size of an object and its distance when you cannot move to a new position.

The calculation has been done before, calculating with different positions, so the formula should be known already.

Anyone reading this and understanding?

You wont get answers  out of theses bastards.  I'm still waiting for one on inertia , air flight times & fuel.

So, no one on this forum understands what I am talking about?

I get what your saying . They get what your saying . Their just not going to understand it because it dosen't fit their spherical spinning dogmatic agenda. You have to realise anyhing that dosen't fit with their dogma Is attacked no mater how credible , failing that they just dont acknowledged it & ignore it .

I am not going to understand it, not because some dogmatic agenda, but because it doesn't work.  No agenda there, unless not accepting obvious BS is an agenda.

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 29, 2015, 03:56:51 PM

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 05:19:34 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 29, 2015, 05:17:05 AM

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 04:23:45 AM

Quote from: BiJane on May 29, 2015, 03:40:02 AM

Quote from: Tom on May 29, 2015, 03:37:14 AM

I am talking about a real event.

Then your measurements are wrong.

Quote

When you measure a table and then you move it 100 meters you can see it becomes smaller. Then 200 meters and it becomes even more smaller. We are talking about the same object.

When has anyone even so much as hinted otherwise?

Quote

There is no point on the beach where the ship is so small that you don't see the ship anymore or a different size. It's a small beach.

Well you will see it as a different size, by your own admission. Whe has anyone ever said you wouldn't see it any more?

I mean, it's fine if you want to troll, most people here do, but you need to come up with something better than that.

omg, what kind of forum is this?

No one answering up to now does understand this simple question about the size of an object and its distance when you cannot move to a new position.

The calculation has been done before, calculating with different positions, so the formula should be known already.

Anyone reading this and understanding?

You wont get answers  out of theses bastards.  I'm still waiting for one on inertia , air flight times & fuel.

So, no one on this forum understands what I am talking about?

I get what your saying . They get what your saying . Their just not going to understand it because it dosen't fit their spherical spinning dogmatic agenda. You have to realise anyhing that dosen't fit with their dogma Is attacked no mater how credible , failing that they just dont acknowledged it & ignore it .

I am not going to understand it, not because some dogmatic agenda, but because it doesn't work.  No agenda there, unless not accepting obvious BS is an agenda.

Prove its not bull shit. Dont just act like a pathetic little Marry Anne.  You just have to step back & look at the bullshit codes & all the other made up laws you filthy lying bath scum have  concocted. Just so it can suit your own agendas.
Anyone one  questioning it , gets labeled antisocial & then set apon.  I chose not to be part of your phucken community of elitist dog shit , not that you would be given  that choice or right to begin with .when it comes to you leaches.

When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home, travling along this lonely road & the night sky she said your along time dead , why dont you pour drink & stay awhile & hope to wake the morning with a smile.
And she said it ain't a sin to throw cauition to the wind & long for happiness my friend.
When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home.
 

I have shown evidence for it not being BS.  I have described ways that you can do, on your own, that shows it is not BS.  Just because you don't understand the properties of triangles does not means that math is BS.

I have shown evidence for it not being BS.  I have described ways that you can do, on your own, that shows it is not BS.  Just because you don't understand the properties of triangles does not means that math is BS.

Dont just piss in my poket. Provide a diagram with your formulated maths.That supports the correct verified distance ,between  a known 100m wide object apearring 10mm from a distance.

Prove its not bull shit. Dont just act like a pathetic little Marry Anne.  You just have to step back & look at the bullshit codes & all the other made up laws you filthy lying bath scum have  concocted. Just so it can suit your own agendas.

Yeah, sometimes I have that opinion about lawyers, too.

Careful, though. You forgot to put spaces before any of the periods there, and there aren't enough misspelled or misused words. You're not maintaining your "complete buffoon" brand, and "branding", as I'm sure you realize, is important. The incomplete sentence at the end is a nice try for a save, but not enough to maintain your usual low standards.

Anyone one  questioning it , gets labeled antisocial & then set apon.  I chose not to be part of your phucken community of elitist dog shit , not that you would be given  that choice or right to begin with .when it comes to you leaches.

Can you work on making the superfluous spacing around your punctuation marks more consistent, even if it's consistently wrong? We train our eyes to scan your incoherent ravings, and this makes our job harder. Thanks!

When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home, travling along this lonely road & the night sky she said your along time dead , why dont pour drink & stay awhile & hope to wake the morning with a smile.
And she said it ain't a sin to throw cauition to the wind & long for happiness my friend.
When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home.

That's pretty nice.

I don't see how it relates to some nimrod holding thumb and finger 2" from his eye (or was it at arm's length? I've lost track) and declaring a 100-meter-long ship must be 5 km away, but it is nice.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 29, 2015, 07:08:38 PM

I have shown evidence for it not being BS.  I have described ways that you can do, on your own, that shows it is not BS.  Just because you don't understand the properties of triangles does not means that math is BS.

Dont just piss in my poket. Provide a diagram with your formulated maths.That supports the correct verified distance ,between  a known 100m wide object apearring 10mm from a distance.

There have been plenty of diagrams shown in this thread, and your inability to understand how math works does not make math total bollocks.  It was also shown that in order to get the distance to a 100m wide object by comparing it to a 10cm object, you need to know the distance to the 10cm object.  Something that Tom initially didn't mention, then said was at 5cm from him, then 20cm, or was it 10cm, maybe it was at arm's length. Either way, we still need to know that distance.  Otherwise he is just saying that he thinks the 100m object is 5km away from him. 

So now why don't you go and support your saide based on more than just your incredulity.

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 29, 2015, 07:30:52 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 29, 2015, 07:08:38 PM

I have shown evidence for it not being BS.  I have described ways that you can do, on your own, that shows it is not BS.  Just because you don't understand the properties of triangles does not means that math is BS.

Dont just piss in my poket. Provide a diagram with your formulated maths.That supports the correct verified distance ,between  a known 100m wide object apearring 10mm from a distance.

There have been plenty of diagrams shown in this thread, and your inability to understand how math works does not make math total bollocks.  It was also shown that in order to get the distance to a 100m wide object by comparing it to a 10cm object, you need to know the distance to the 10cm object.  Something that Tom initially didn't mention, then said was at 5cm from him, then 20cm, or was it 10cm, maybe it was at arm's length. Either way, we still need to know that distance.  Otherwise he is just saying that he thinks the 100m object is 5km away from him. 

So now why don't you go and support your saide based on more than just your incredulity.

lets assume its the 10mm lens of the eye its self . Whats the distance ?

Is it just my imagination or does it seem like there are multiple versions of Charles Bloomington,  one minute he's a foul mouthed drooling idiot,  unable to spell or put two words together in any way that makes sense,   and the next he's literate, coherent and the spelling mistakes disappear.    It's either two people, or the difference between the angry drunk and sober versions.

Charles,  If it's diagrams that float your boat, there are plenty in the other parallel thread.  If it's the angry drunk,  please pass the message to the other Charles.

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 29, 2015, 07:43:02 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 29, 2015, 07:30:52 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on May 29, 2015, 07:08:38 PM

I have shown evidence for it not being BS.  I have described ways that you can do, on your own, that shows it is not BS.  Just because you don't understand the properties of triangles does not means that math is BS.

Dont just piss in my poket. Provide a diagram with your formulated maths.That supports the correct verified distance ,between  a known 100m wide object apearring 10mm from a distance.

There have been plenty of diagrams shown in this thread, and your inability to understand how math works does not make math total bollocks.  It was also shown that in order to get the distance to a 100m wide object by comparing it to a 10cm object, you need to know the distance to the 10cm object.  Something that Tom initially didn't mention, then said was at 5cm from him, then 20cm, or was it 10cm, maybe it was at arm's length. Either way, we still need to know that distance.  Otherwise he is just saying that he thinks the 100m object is 5km away from him. 

So now why don't you go and support your saide based on more than just your incredulity.

lets assume its the 10mm lens of the eye its self . Whats the distance ?

Well, seeing as you cannot see the lense of your eye, you cannot compare the size of the lense of your eye to the ship in the distance.  This is also not what was asked in the OP, where it states, quite clearly mind you, that the ship was 10cm across.  It was later revealed, after much prodding, that this 10cm was actually measured with his thumb and finger. 

Also, since the lense of your eye is actually part of your eye, you do not have a distance from your eye to measure to use to get the ratio of distances.

Please, if you cannot comprehend a discussion, go back and read posts before jumping in and claiming everything that has been presented is total BS.

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 29, 2015, 07:02:16 PM

Prove its not bull shit. Dont just act like a pathetic little Marry Anne.  You just have to step back & look at the bullshit codes & all the other made up laws you filthy lying bath scum have  concocted. Just so it can suit your own agendas.

Yeah, sometimes I have that opinion about lawyers, too.

Careful, though. You forgot to put spaces before any of the periods there, and there aren't enough misspelled or misused words. You're not maintaining your "complete buffoon" brand, and "branding", as I'm sure you realize, is important. The incomplete sentence at the end is a nice try for a save, but not enough to maintain your usual low standards.

Quote

Anyone one  questioning it , gets labeled antisocial & then set apon.  I chose not to be part of your phucken community of elitist dog shit , not that you would be given  that choice or right to begin with .when it comes to you leaches.

Can you work on making the superfluous spacing around your punctuation marks more consistent, even if it's consistently wrong? We train our eyes to scan your incoherent ravings, and this makes our job harder. Thanks!

Quote

When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home, travling along this lonely road & the night sky she said your along time dead , why dont pour drink & stay awhile & hope to wake the morning with a smile.
And she said it ain't a sin to throw cauition to the wind & long for happiness my friend.
When the sun sets low & the cold winter winds blow .
Thats when I miss home.

That's pretty nice.

I don't see how it relates to some nimrod holding thumb and finger 2" from his eye (or was it at arm's length? I've lost track) and declaring a 100-meter-long ship must be 5 km away, but it is nice.

It was a cold night out under the stars  , so I think I have earned the right as a human being to tell you. To go phuck your self .

you can see they're lying. their explanation for measuring relies upon drawing two triangles, start from one point, and extending a straight line past the ruler to the ship. then they draw a hypotenuse from the starting point, to the top of the ruler, and then to the other side of the ship. at no point do they explain why this is even possible: there's no way it is always going to be the case that you can draw a straight line between any three points. that's laughable.
their bs is often obvious.

you can see they're lying. their explanation for measuring relies upon drawing two triangles, start from one point, and extending a straight line past the ruler to the ship. then they draw a hypotenuse from the starting point, to the top of the ruler, and then to the other side of the ship. at no point do they explain why this is even possible: there's no way it is always going to be the case that you can draw a straight line between any three points. that's laughable.
their bs is often obvious.

Jrowe, you disappoint me,  I thought you were smarter than that.     Let's try a simple experiment,   hold up your hand in front of your face, and extend your index finger, now move your hand so that it lines up with some distant object.   Now we have  three points in a line,   seeing as you think that's laughable, perhaps you'll give an example of when it can't be done.

Ok, now let's use the thumb as well,  pick a distant object,  and change the spacing of the thumb and forefinger to line up with the front and back of the object.   We now have two similar triangles, and we can approximate the ratio of the distance to the object and the length of the object.   If we know the distance we can approximate the size,  or if we know the size we can approximate the distance.

I say it's as plain as the hand in front of your face, that you don't have a clue.   Just who is full of BS is now becoming apparent. 

Jrowe, you disappoint me,  I thought you were smarter than that.

Whaa? You did? Rayzor, you disappoint me, I thought you were smarter than that.

Let's try a simple experiment

Sorry to say, but you've already lost JRowe. Anything that requires more than 'logical thought' is either too difficult or worthless in his tiny mind.

Who needs trigonometry anyway? JRowe has personally discovered aether which explains everything. Ask him for a direct line so you can stop wasting time in the real world with math and science n' stuff.

Jrowe, you disappoint me,  I thought you were smarter than that.     Let's try a simple experiment,   hold up your hand in front of your face, and extend your index finger, now move your hand so that it lines up with some distant object.   Now we have  three points in a line, 
let me stop you at the bolded step. you cannot simply assume that the measurements were taken in that kind of arrangement. the points were already there, and set up: you are in no position to alter where they are. you've just assumed they were in a configuration like that: which you cannot do.


seeing as you think that's laughable, perhaps you'll give an example of when it can't be done.
easy:
.       .
    .
draw a straight line through those three dots if you would.

Jrowe, you disappoint me,  I thought you were smarter than that.     Let's try a simple experiment,   hold up your hand in front of your face, and extend your index finger, now move your hand so that it lines up with some distant object.   Now we have  three points in a line, 
let me stop you at the bolded step. you cannot simply assume that the measurements were taken in that kind of arrangement. the points were already there, and set up: you are in no position to alter where they are. you've just assumed they were in a configuration like that: which you cannot do.


seeing as you think that's laughable, perhaps you'll give an example of when it can't be done.
easy:
.       .
    .
draw a straight line through those three dots if you would.

Not especially relevant to the discussion,  but since you didn't understand the method in the first place,  you can be forgiven for thinking  three dots was somehow significant. 

The method is to construct  two similar triangles,  it should be obvious that if you can't construct the triangles the method isn't applicable,  that doesn't mean it's lies and bs as you claim,  unless you are now claiming the method doesn't work?

Jrowe, you disappoint me,  I thought you were smarter than that.     Let's try a simple experiment,   hold up your hand in front of your face, and extend your index finger, now move your hand so that it lines up with some distant object.   Now we have  three points in a line, 
let me stop you at the bolded step. you cannot simply assume that the measurements were taken in that kind of arrangement.

Well, we are not assuming.  The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.  SO yeah, we do get to do it this way.

the points were already there, and set up: you are in no position to alter where they are. you've just assumed they were in a configuration like that: which you cannot do.

Once again, the OP has stated how the ship was measured.  No assumptions at all.

seeing as you think that's laughable, perhaps you'll give an example of when it can't be done.
easy:
.       .
    .
draw a straight line through those three dots if you would.

Completely not what was asked of you.

The method is to construct  two similar triangles,  it should be obvious that if you can't construct the triangles the method isn't applicable,
exactly. you can't justa ssume you are able to construct those triangles.

unless you are now claiming the method doesn't work?
it may work sometimes, it is not universally relevant.

Well, we are not assuming.  The OP specifically stated he used his had to measure the ship at 10cm when he looked at it.
that's not even close to enough. if you have a hand, an eye and a ship in existence, that still doesn't mean you can draw a straight line in between them. not even close.

For all those who still think that trigonometry is a lie:

http://imageshack.com/a/img907/3285/FTmsF5.jpg

We have a right triangle with one 45 degree angle and a side of 3 cm.

tan(45)/1 = x/3

x=3

We measure the opposite side and guess what? It's 3 cm! crazy!

http://imageshack.com/a/img901/5053/HcZbla.jpg

Lets try another:

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/3010/rZp984.jpg

tan(27)/1 = x/2

x= 1.01

http://imageshack.com/a/img537/8193/SG1QNU.jpg


So basically, the simple, 9th grade-level geometric concepts used by architects and engineers around the globe are actually correct! Isn't that crazy?

For those who don't even understand trig, please use the link in my earlier post. Educate yourself and join the rest of the educated world

my problem isn't with trigonometry. did you even read my posts? my problem is with assuming you can automatically draw a line between any three points, which is demonstrably not true. i did not query trigonometry whatsoever, which you would know if you had even bothered to read. what is your problem? can you do anything other than straw men? i am sick of the likes of you thinking you get to belittle and ignore me just because i see through your fantasy.