An unbiased debate.

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 03:36:41 AM

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So Charles,  why do you think the earth is flat?   Or if you don't,  why do you think it's round?

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 03:36:41 AM

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Leo Wanker has his work cut out around this place. Show us your knife.

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 28, 2015, 05:44:33 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 03:36:41 AM

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Leo Wanker has his work cut out around this place. Show us your knife.

Didn't anyone ever tell you, you never bring a knife to a gun fight.

Quote from: guv on June 28, 2015, 05:53:43 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 28, 2015, 05:44:33 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 03:36:41 AM

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Leo Wanker has his work cut out around this place. Show us your knife.

Didn't anyone ever tell you, you never bring a knife to a gun fight.

Empty long neck is better close in.

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 03:36:41 AM

So far all I see is arguments for a round earth,   I thought this thread would be an opportunity for flat earth believers to put forward an argument in support of flat earth. 

Why do you think the earth is flat?

An unbiased debate with the first post asking for flat earthers to understand .  ::)Well you know what thought did . Thought he had left the light on so he lit a candle to see if he had.
The Paul Hogan Show - Leo Wanker Gets Towed: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Leo Wanker Moto Jump: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Ok,  So Leo Wanker is your hero,   I would have thought of you more as a Russel Coight,   outback fencing and all.    So why do you think the earth is flat?  or if I remember rightly you don't think it's flat,  so in that case why do you think it's round?

So much for PRETENDING you know nothing and then going into frenzy mode of seemingly accepting that all your above are proof's, bearing in mind, you are unbiased and know nothing about a globe.

 

You are the one who asked for round Earth proofs.

Because we nor the water falls off. Good enough for me, regardless of all the rest of it.

Why would things fall off the Earth?  What force could there possibly be that pulls water and people off but does not pull the Earth?

So much for PRETENDING you know nothing and then going into frenzy mode of seemingly accepting that all your above are proof's, bearing in mind, you are unbiased and know nothing about a globe.

 

"Show me this proof of yours."

*proof displayed by Misero*

"Okay. That's cool. I'm going to completely ignore it. You can leave now. Okay now mikeman show me your proof.".........

*proofs displayed by mikeman*

"Haha watch I'm going to ignore these too! Woo that was fun. You guys need to think critically, like me! Now listen to me ignore gravity and tell you water would fall off the Earth."

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2015, 05:35:01 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on June 28, 2015, 05:07:11 AM

The whole point of this thread is to have an open mind,  that's where I'm coming from.  (or trying to)

I can see why the earth has to be flat for denspressure to work,   so continuing with denspressure,   what causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease with altitude?

I've tried to explain this and people just either don't get it because they are incapable of thinking on that line or they immediately put up a gravity shield of thought.

Let's see how you fare again, Geoff. Maybe you've decided to play another game.

I'll say this in a few words. I expect you to try and grasp it by using your common sense.
If atmosphere is pushed UP from the ground into gas form, it's pushed into sea level molecules of compressed mass and now has to have more energy to expand through it, by which time it gets broken down into it's various elements meaning it takes a place higher up due to that energy force.

Because it's expanded due to energy it squeezes through the denser molecules which react by crushing back by smaller but denser numbers.
As this molecule  takes it's place in the atmospheric layer, it displaces molecules in that layer until some will reach the top as they expand due to not having to have any more or very little matter to push through. Because of this they become really expanded meaning less can occupy the space above, not to mention the dome is channeling the matter around it like an arch, leaving less at the top.

Think of it like climbing into bed, only you have to do it by pushing yourself into the covers because your bed is full of wet army blankets stacked up. You lay under them and feel yourself getting crushed. You fight against it by pushing back against those covers, trying to kick them away.
You are so frenzied that you've literally heated yourself up by friction and now you have to push through those blankets to try and get to the top or to a place where you can expand yourself.

Imagine getting to the very top and laying on top of the blankets. You are now only applying your own body onto the blankets below whilst your ceiling facing side has no pressure upon it at all so you have nothing to expand into or struggle against, so you go dormant or go to sleep, until someone else does the same thing and starts nudging your arse to get on top of you. You can call this a semi frozen under dome and so on as you come down.

Ok,   I'll need time to think about that.    I'm not Geoff by the way.

You should read up on String Theory and M-Theory as well as Quantum ChromoDynamics,  I see some conceptual parallels with your ideas.   I don't know what your maths background is, but you could learn what you need.

What I learn about will not come from mainstream science books. The trouble with mainstream theoretical science is, it's theoretically hypothetical in many cases.
I prefer to decipher it all myself using what I was born with. The ability to question and dig, plus use my own basic logic and common sense to piece stuff together so that it makes more sense to the lay person.

String theory and all the rest of the stuff can stay inside the books and people's minds who feel somehow superior by actually absorbing this type of explanation.

You people are the real strange one's. Spending your entire lives buying into fantasy that is clearly in your face fantasy.

What I learn about will not come from mainstream science books. The trouble with mainstream theoretical science is, it's theoretically hypothetical in many cases.
I prefer to decipher it all myself using what I was born with. The ability to question and dig, plus use my own basic logic and common sense to piece stuff together so that it makes more sense to the lay person.

String theory and all the rest of the stuff can stay inside the books and people's minds who feel somehow superior by actually absorbing this type of explanation.

You people are the real strange one's. Spending your entire lives buying into fantasy that is clearly in your face fantasy.

You don't have to accept mainstream science to accept the maths,   I've read where you describe the world in terms of vibrations,   that  sounds somthing like string theory to me,   so why not invest a little time and see what parallels they have to your ideas.   Logic and common sense are the only tools you need.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 01:09:10 AM

What I learn about will not come from mainstream science books. The trouble with mainstream theoretical science is, it's theoretically hypothetical in many cases.
I prefer to decipher it all myself using what I was born with. The ability to question and dig, plus use my own basic logic and common sense to piece stuff together so that it makes more sense to the lay person.

String theory and all the rest of the stuff can stay inside the books and people's minds who feel somehow superior by actually absorbing this type of explanation.

You people are the real strange one's. Spending your entire lives buying into fantasy that is clearly in your face fantasy.

You don't have to accept mainstream science to accept the maths,   I've read where you describe the world in terms of vibrations,   that  sounds somthing like string theory to me,   so why not invest a little time and see what parallels they have to your ideas.   Logic and common sense are the only tools you need.

I don't know what string theory is. I have a valid reason for it. It's because the word string put me off.
Care to explain it as if you're telling it to a kid. No need for equations or maths, just explain it in basic quick format.

Care to explain it as if you're telling it to a kid. No need for equations or maths, just explain it in basic quick format.

I hope you realize that when people use equations and maths, it's not to show off their knowledge or to make you feel stupid. It's because equations and maths give us an unparalleled amount of accuracy and precision. Trying to explain physics without using math is like trying to explain sailing without wind. It's a non-starter.

The only reason that you are asking for a simple explanation of a complex theory is so you can say "that sounds dumb" or "that's too complicated" and act like you know better than the entire scientific community. Any explanation you are given will be intended for a lay person and will not accurately reflect on the actual theory.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 02:00:47 AM

Care to explain it as if you're telling it to a kid. No need for equations or maths, just explain it in basic quick format.

I hope you realize that when people use equations and maths, it's not to show off their knowledge or to make you feel stupid. It's because equations and maths give us an unparalleled amount of accuracy and precision. Trying to explain physics without using math is like trying to explain sailing without wind. It's a non-starter.

The only reason that you are asking for a simple explanation of a complex theory is so you can say "that sounds dumb" or "that's too complicated" and act like you know better than the entire scientific community. Any explanation you are given will be intended for a lay person and will not accurately reflect on the actual theory.

No, not at all. I just want it explained without people like you being scared to explain it in simple terms because you are too frightened as to how silly it may look.

You see, talking basic will alert the laymen and wake many up. Talk in equations and complications that you pretend are simple run of the mill school like calculations tends to make the laymen shy away from arguing the point or actually seeing anything in it, so they are no further forward.

Merely spewing out massive equations for how flash Gordon's ship works does not mean it works or those equations mean anything at all, except as a fantasy thought process.

No, not at all. I just want it explained without people like you being scared to explain it in simple terms because you are too frightened as to how silly it may look.

See, you're preemptively trying to say the the theory is silly because of the simple explanation.

You see, talking basic will alert the laymen and wake many up. Talk in equations and complications that you pretend are simple run of the mill school like calculations tends to make the laymen shy away from arguing the point or actually seeing anything in it, so they are no further forward.

It's clear that you didn't actually read my post, or you completely ignored it. If you are given an explanation intended for a lay person, that does not accurately represent the theory. To try to disprove a theory based only on a simple explanation is foolish. If you really want to prove these ideas wrong, you should learn exactly what they are. There really is no pleasing you. If you are given a simple but silly-sounding explanation, you claim that the theory is ridiculous. If you are given a complicated explanation using equations and maths, you claim the theory is too complicated.

Merely spewing out massive equations for how flash Gordon's ship works does not mean it works or those equations mean anything at all, except as a fantasy thought process.

If Flash Gordon's ship were a real thing we could test, then equations for how it works would be very useful. The equations used in the vast majority of physics describe things that can be physically tested. Any formula that describes an untestable phenomena remains hypothetical until it can be tested. It's unlikely that anybody on this forum has given you an equation for something that you personally can not test.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 02:49:31 AM

No, not at all. I just want it explained without people like you being scared to explain it in simple terms because you are too frightened as to how silly it may look.

See, you're preemptively trying to say the the theory is silly because of the simple explanation.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 02:49:31 AM

You see, talking basic will alert the laymen and wake many up. Talk in equations and complications that you pretend are simple run of the mill school like calculations tends to make the laymen shy away from arguing the point or actually seeing anything in it, so they are no further forward.

It's clear that you didn't actually read my post, or you completely ignored it. If you are given an explanation intended for a lay person, that does not accurately represent the theory. To try to disprove a theory based only on a simple explanation is foolish. If you really want to prove these ideas wrong, you should learn exactly what they are. There really is no pleasing you. If you are given a simple but silly-sounding explanation, you claim that the theory is ridiculous. If you are given a complicated explanation using equations and maths, you claim the theory is too complicated.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 02:49:31 AM

Merely spewing out massive equations for how flash Gordon's ship works does not mean it works or those equations mean anything at all, except as a fantasy thought process.

If Flash Gordon's ship were a real thing we could test, then equations for how it works would be very useful. The equations used in the vast majority of physics describe things that can be physically tested. Any formula that describes an untestable phenomena remains hypothetical until it can be tested. It's unlikely that anybody on this forum has given you an equation for something that you personally can not test.

Give me the equation for 1/6th gravity and then tel me how I test this out, physically.

Tell you what. Tell me how they figured the moons gravity was 1/6th of Earth's.
Show me how they worked out the size of the moon.
Show me how they worked out the size of the sun.

Do all this is basic terms. Do it with the stuff that the scientists of yesteryear used and explain in simple terms how they used their tools and simple observations to come to the answers we have today.

Over to you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 02:00:47 AM

Care to explain it as if you're telling it to a kid. No need for equations or maths, just explain it in basic quick format.

I hope you realize that when people use equations and maths, it's not to show off their knowledge or to make you feel stupid. It's because equations and maths give us an unparalleled amount of accuracy and precision. Trying to explain physics without using math is like trying to explain sailing without wind. It's a non-starter.

The only reason that you are asking for a simple explanation of a complex theory is so you can say "that sounds dumb" or "that's too complicated" and act like you know better than the entire scientific community. Any explanation you are given will be intended for a lay person and will not accurately reflect on the actual theory.

Good point  explaining string theory without  math,  you miss the elegance and beauty.    But  it can be understood at some level without maths.

In quantum string theory all vibrational modes of tiny strings coorespond to the energy levels of fundamental particles,  strings can be open or closed,   particles like the photon (and graviton) emerge naturally from the equations of string theory, and surprisingly Maxwells equations for electrodynamics appear from string dynamics.   Since the graviton emerges naturally from string theory as well,  so quantum gravity is part of string theory.

String theory equations  have been refined and  evolved into  superstring theory,  string theory allowed the existence of negative mass faster than light tachyons,  superstring theory becomes supersymmetry and postulates that particles have supersymmetric equivalents,  the upgrade at the LHC should reach energy levels needed to test supersymmetry.

At it's heart supersymmetry proposes that forces and particles are equivalent,   M-theory combines a number of different string theories, and a theory of supergravity.   

The standard model of particle physics is a beautiful thing.    Six Quarks,  Six Leptons,  4 forces.   



That's a good place to stop.    Should I go on,  or are you unbiased enough to continue?

Quote from: Poko on June 30, 2015, 02:34:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 02:00:47 AM

Care to explain it as if you're telling it to a kid. No need for equations or maths, just explain it in basic quick format.

I hope you realize that when people use equations and maths, it's not to show off their knowledge or to make you feel stupid. It's because equations and maths give us an unparalleled amount of accuracy and precision. Trying to explain physics without using math is like trying to explain sailing without wind. It's a non-starter.

The only reason that you are asking for a simple explanation of a complex theory is so you can say "that sounds dumb" or "that's too complicated" and act like you know better than the entire scientific community. Any explanation you are given will be intended for a lay person and will not accurately reflect on the actual theory.

Good point  explaining string theory without  math,  you miss the elegance and beauty.    But  it can be understood at some level without maths.

In quantum string theory all vibrational modes of tiny strings coorespond to the energy levels of fundamental particles,  strings can be open or closed,   particles like the photon (and graviton) emerge naturally from the equations of string theory, and surprisingly Maxwells equations for electrodynamics appear from string dynamics.   Since the graviton emerges naturally from string theory as well,  so quantum gravity is part of string theory.

String theory equations  have been refined and  evolved into  superstring theory,  string theory allowed the existence of negative mass faster than light tachyons,  superstring theory becomes supersymmetry and postulates that particles have supersymmetric equivalents,  the upgrade at the LHC should reach energy levels needed to test supersymmetry.

At it's heart supersymmetry proposes that forces and particles are equivalent,   M-theory combines a number of different string theories, and a theory of supergravity.   

The standard model of particle physics is a beautiful thing.    Six Quarks,  Six Leptons,  4 forces.   



That's a good place to stop.    Should I go on,  or are you unbiased enough to continue?

I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.

Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud. 

Tell you what. Tell me how they figured the moons gravity was 1/6th of Earth's.
Show me how they worked out the size of the moon.
Show me how they worked out the size of the sun.

Do all this is basic terms. Do it with the stuff that the scientists of yesteryear used and explain in simple terms how they used their tools and simple observations to come to the answers we have today.

Over to you.

Ok, I retract my statement that every piece of information given to you can be independently verified. However, my point still stands that you can test most of it.The mass of the moon is calculated by measuring its gravitational pull using sensitive equipment and satellites that you simply do not have access to.

However, you can independently verify the distance to the sun and moon as well as their diameters. All you need is a telescope and a friend in another part of the world who also has a telescope. There is a lot of math, and frankly I can't be assed to type it all out, so here is a helpful video explaining the process (WARNING: there are a lot of equations and maths involved).

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

This video shows how to calculate the distance to Mars and to the sun, but the same methodology can be applied to calculate the distance to the moon. The video also explains how you can use angular size to calculate the size of the moon and the sun. Keep in mind that this was first done in 1617, before any space agency existed.

I'm absolutely crying with laughing at all that frigging mumbo jumbo.

Just tell me what the hell a string is for crying out loud. 

And I can see that you have written off an attempt at a layman's explanation of String Theory as "mumbo jumbo", exactly as I predicted in my previous posts. Maybe you should make an attempt to learn and understand the information being given to you and understand that the explanation is not complete.

Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby 

Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby 

So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Quote from: Poko on June 30, 2015, 04:16:00 AM

Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby 

So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 04:20:22 AM

Quote from: Poko on June 30, 2015, 04:16:00 AM

Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby 

So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.

So basically you haven't got a clue and it's not feasible unless you have some kind of reference point.

Quote from: Poko on June 30, 2015, 04:51:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 04:20:22 AM

Quote from: Poko on June 30, 2015, 04:16:00 AM

Don't think I didn't see that post you just made, sceptimatic. Looks like you got the smack down from the moderators for explicit content.

To answer your questions
1. Fred and Martha could calculate their distance from Bobby as long as they know the distance between each other and could see Bobby. They would just need a protractor and a calculator.

2. Oh yeah, baby 

So they can calculate the distance as long as they know the distance. That's a bit silly isn't it.

Can you explain it a bit clearer so we can tell how wide the road is from Bobby's point of view.

Fred and Martha could calculate the distance between Fred and Bobbdy and they could calculate the distance between Martha and Bobby as long if they knew the distance between Fred and Martha.

Bobby could calculate the distance between Bobby and Fred and he could calculate the distance between Bobby and Martha as long as he could move along the road.

Let's do an example problem, math is fun!

Let's say that Bobby is looking at Martha and that both Martha and Bobby are standing on the edge of the road. Bobby walks along the road such that Martha is directly in front of him and in the center of his field of view. Now, Bobby moves 5 meters to the right, still facing forward. He pulls out his protractor and find that the angle between the center of his field of view and Martha is 5 degrees.

He then pulls out his calculator and does the following calculations:

http://i.imgur.com/guNIbDb.jpg

and he finds that the road is 57.253 meters across.

The actual distance would be closer to 57.150 meters, but Bobby had to round some numbers to make the math easier to represent on paper.

So basically you haven't got a clue and it's not feasible unless you have some kind of reference point.

Did you not read a single word of my post? I showed you exactly how to calculate the distance, so obviously I have got a clue. If you would like, you could give me any angle other than 5 degrees or any difference in position other than 5 meters and I could find the width of the road. This is the type of problem you would expect to find in a high school geometry textbook. A 4 year old could do exactly what I just did with the proper knowledge of geometry.

Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

Dead easy, walk 100 hundred ft at a right angle to the ball, measure angle to ball. Do some trig. Don't you know anything?.

Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 07:20:22 AM

Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

Dead easy, walk 100 hundred ft at a right angle to the ball, measure angle to ball. Do some trig. Don't you know anything?.

Either answer the questions or sit back and allow someone else to.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 07:20:22 AM

Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?

Ok, now do the same thing again but with a ball that's half a mile away and 3 feet in diameter. You naturally don't know this, so back out with your tools.

Quote from: Poko on June 30, 2015, 07:57:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 07:20:22 AM

Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?

Ok, now do the same thing again but with a ball that's half a mile away and 3 feet in diameter. You naturally don't know this, so back out with your tools.

I would do the EXACT same thing I did before, only I would replace the numbers with my new observations.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 08:05:55 AM

Quote from: Poko on June 30, 2015, 07:57:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 30, 2015, 07:20:22 AM

Ok, poko, tell me how you reach this answer.

You are stood on a flat area of land with no reference points around you, just the ground.

Somewhere in the distance I place a large ball. You can use all the basic tools that one of your historical hero's supposedly used to tell me how you figured this out.

Ok, the ball is 6 feet in diameter and it is 1 mile away. You do not know any of this.You are stood with just your tools around you.
Ok now tell me how you figure out the ball's size and distance.

First, I draw a straight line in the dirt facing towards the ball. Now, I use my protractor to draw a line perpendicular to the line I just drew. I extend this line 20 meters out to my right. Now I draw another line from the endpoint of the 20 meter line towards the ball. Now I use my protractor to measure the angle I just created. I measure the angle to be 89.288 degrees. I know that I have just created a right triangle with the intersections of the lines I have drawn and the ball. Using my calculator, I take the tangent of 89.288, which is 80.46745815. Now I know that the ratio of my distance to the ball to 20 meters is 80.46745815. I multiply 80.46745815 by 20 and get 1609.35 meters. So now I know that the ball is 1609.35 meters away. Now, I use my protractor to find the angular of the ball and I find it to be 0.0651 degrees. Using the tangent half-angle formula, I know that D=2r*tan(a/2), where r is the distance to the object and a is the angular diameter of the object. I plug in my variable and I get this: (3218.7)(tan(0.03255)) = (3218.7)(0.0005681047326) = 1.82856

So now I have 1609.35 meters for the distance to the ball and 1.82856 meters for the diameter of the ball. Both of these values are well within acceptable bounds. guv is absolutely right. Isn't math wonderful?

Ok, now do the same thing again but with a ball that's half a mile away and 3 feet in diameter. You naturally don't know this, so back out with your tools.

I would do the EXACT same thing I did before, only I would replace the numbers with my new observations.

What new observations. How would you know to do this. Just explain what you would do and how you decided it was 3 feet diameter ball and half a mile, now.

Show me the calculations for this like you did with the last.