Flat Earth Reality

  • 75 Replies
  • 7610 Views
*

JerkFace

  • 11110
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2016, 02:39:22 AM »
This thread is over.

Here is some basic FLAT EARTH REALITY for all of you.





And we can't see the bottom of the buildings because?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

JerkFace

  • 11110
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2016, 02:43:03 AM »
If you can get a good laser rangefinder, something the scale of the towers of the golden gate bridge or humber bridge would should be enough (they are a bit more than an inch further apart at the tops).
I imagine the problem would be trying to ensure the laser goes to the comparative point at the exact same height on the other tower. It would be way too easy to be an inch off from just where you place the rangefinder.
This experiment isn't really feasible.

In the video he surveyed the variation in plumb at 1 mile intervals along a straight highway,  measuring verticality accuracy is no different to measuring horizontal accuracy.   Horizontal, level and flat are all different terms.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2016, 03:18:27 AM »



*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2016, 03:22:34 AM »
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away.  Welcome to the world of perspective. 

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2016, 03:30:14 AM »
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away.  Welcome to the world of perspective.
Welcome to the world of being proven wrong.  You've been living in it for years, but you haven't realized it yet.  Surprise!  It's shaped like a globe. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2016, 03:31:44 AM »
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away.  Welcome to the world of perspective.
Welcome to the world of being proven wrong.  You've been living in it for years, but you haven't realized it yet.  Surprise!  It's shaped like a globe. 

I seem to be the only one in this discussion who is not trying to deny the laws of perspective. 

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2016, 03:35:41 AM »
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away.  Welcome to the world of perspective.
Welcome to the world of being proven wrong.  You've been living in it for years, but you haven't realized it yet.  Surprise!  It's shaped like a globe. 

I seem to be the only one in this discussion who is not trying to deny the laws of perspective.
No, everyone else understands perspective.  But maybe consider that the "swell" is the curvature of the earth.  The peak is clearly very far out, and doesn't resemble anything like a wave. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2016, 03:40:28 AM »
You people are the ones trying to redefine the laws of perspective.  You make claims, such as, "Perspective does not work on telescopes."  This is so amusing watching you squirm in an attempt to hide your lies.  lol

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2016, 03:44:29 AM »
You people are the ones trying to redefine the laws of perspective.  You make claims, such as, "Perspective does not work on telescopes."  This is so amusing watching you squirm in an attempt to hide your lies.  lol
Since when has anyone said that??  Perspective decreases with distance; that's a self-evident fact. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2016, 03:48:15 AM »
You people are the ones trying to redefine the laws of perspective.  You make claims, such as, "Perspective does not work on telescopes."  This is so amusing watching you squirm in an attempt to hide your lies.  lol
Since when has anyone said that??  Perspective decreases with distance; that's a self-evident fact. 

It's in the Q&A forum.  You are welcome to read that forum if you would like to. 

Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2016, 03:51:58 AM »
You people are the ones trying to redefine the laws of perspective.  You make claims, such as, "Perspective does not work on telescopes."  This is so amusing watching you squirm in an attempt to hide your lies.  lol

looking through a telescope at an object far away will not increase the visual angle. it will make the object bigger, but the visual angle will not change. I think that's an aspect of perspective that you need to read up on.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2016, 05:22:06 AM »
Apparently, swells that are relatively close can block part of relatively larger objects that are farther away.  Welcome to the world of perspective.
The laws of perspective won't block anything if your vantage point is above the blockages. You'd need swells at a pretty impressive size to blot out that much of a building.
Stick to bendy light.

*

JerkFace

  • 11110
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #42 on: March 17, 2016, 04:58:17 AM »
If you can get a good laser rangefinder, something the scale of the towers of the golden gate bridge or humber bridge would should be enough (they are a bit more than an inch further apart at the tops).
I imagine the problem would be trying to ensure the laser goes to the comparative point at the exact same height on the other tower. It would be way too easy to be an inch off from just where you place the rangefinder.
This experiment isn't really feasible.

Not really,  he shows in the video how he measured zenith angles at a one mile interval,  along a north south highway, and confirms the 1 arc minute per mile variation in zenith angle. 
Since you are too busy polishing your nails  :)  to watch the video you only need to watch from 30:15 to 33:36.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #43 on: March 17, 2016, 05:59:32 AM »
This thread is over.
Here is some basic FLAT EARTH REALITY for all of you.


And we can't see the bottom of the buildings because?
Teacher, teacher, I know!
Perspective and Bendy Light!
What I would like to see is that same photo taken at different times of day. We have seen extreme cases that vary from a normal view to a Fata "Morgana" situation, but some more normal cases of varying refraction would be very useful.
As it both sides often "claim" evidence from the same photograph!

Also remember that ships' lookouts for centuries have used the visible horizon distance to estimate the range of other ships and land and that range varies in a fairly predictable way with eye height. The following is an extract from a USN Handbook ( ;D  Sorry, but I guess they are part of the conspiracy!   ;D)

Quote from: Lookout Training Handbook NAVEDTRA 12968-D
RANGE ESTIMATION
Question CIC concerning the radar ranges to visual contacts and compare them with your estimated range. 

The only readily available reference point you can use when estimating ranges is the horizon.  Knowing your height above the waterline will help you estimate ranges because the distance to the horizon varies with the height of the eye (Figure 5-5).
HEIGHT OF EYE
     RANGE TO   HORIZON
FEET
YARDS
MILES
20
10,200
5.1
40
14,400
7.2
60
17,800
8.9
80
20,600
10.3
Figure 5-5: Range – Height Table
At a height of 50 feet, for example, the distance to the horizon is about 16,000 yards (8 miles); at a height of 100 feet, the distance is about 23,000 yards (11-1/2 miles).  Practice estimating ranges to other vessels in company whose distances are known or can be easily determined. 
 
::) Do you think those poor sailors got confused when they found that the Navy had lied to them?  ::)


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #44 on: March 17, 2016, 06:25:51 AM »
If you can get a good laser rangefinder, something the scale of the towers of the golden gate bridge or humber bridge would should be enough (they are a bit more than an inch further apart at the tops).
I imagine the problem would be trying to ensure the laser goes to the comparative point at the exact same height on the other tower. It would be way too easy to be an inch off from just where you place the rangefinder.
This experiment isn't really feasible.

Not really,  he shows in the video how he measured zenith angles at a one mile interval,  along a north south highway, and confirms the 1 arc minute per mile variation in zenith angle. 
Since you are too busy polishing your nails  :)  to watch the video you only need to watch from 30:15 to 33:36.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Analysing bifurcations and the Rayleigh-Faber-Krahn inequality actually. My nails are fine  :P
That's not the experiment that was proposed. Trying to get a laser rangefinder to give an accurate measurement between two towers isn't really the same as using theodolites and mile markers.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #45 on: March 17, 2016, 06:44:17 AM »
If you can get a good laser rangefinder, something the scale of the towers of the golden gate bridge or humber bridge would should be enough (they are a bit more than an inch further apart at the tops).
I imagine the problem would be trying to ensure the laser goes to the comparative point at the exact same height on the other tower. It would be way too easy to be an inch off from just where you place the rangefinder.
This experiment isn't really feasible.

Not really,  he shows in the video how he measured zenith angles at a one mile interval,  along a north south highway, and confirms the 1 arc minute per mile variation in zenith angle. 
Since you are too busy polishing your nails  :)  to watch the video you only need to watch from 30:15 to 33:36.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Analysing bifurcations and the Rayleigh-Faber-Krahn inequality actually. My nails are fine  :P
That's not the experiment that was proposed. Trying to get a laser rangefinder to give an accurate measurement between two towers isn't really the same as using theodolites and mile markers.
If you are two people, one could use a bit of plywood. As long as the rangefinder and the plywood bit have the same relation to the towers at the ground and on the top (I don't know what the base looks like on these bridges, so it might be hard or not), like for example from the center of one tower to the center of the other, it should work well. So at the base you measure from the center (but stand to the left or right of the tower, it would be hard to stand inside them), and at the top you measure from the center.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #46 on: March 17, 2016, 07:02:08 AM »
If you are two people, one could use a bit of plywood. As long as the rangefinder and the plywood bit have the same relation to the towers at the ground and on the top (I don't know what the base looks like on these bridges, so it might be hard or not), like for example from the center of one tower to the center of the other, it should work well. So at the base you measure from the center (but stand to the left or right of the tower, it would be hard to stand inside them), and at the top you measure from the center.
It'd have to be a very small bit of plywood: avoid the laser going at any angle. Angles would mean quite a bit more distance on this scale. And if it's that small, good luck finding it.
Plus there's the matter of lining up position. You'd need the two towers to be identical (unlikely as humans built them), and be able to measure to the exact centre on both, which is hardly an easy thing to do simultaneously.
And you'd need to hold the rangefinder at the same point, relative to the other tower.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #47 on: March 17, 2016, 10:22:24 AM »
6:30
"[...] here are some mathematicians doing some type of celestial observation. And what are they doing here? Conspiring to create a fake round earth..."

That's his ideological bias. This video can't be serious.
One can't analyse a subject by means of irony and pretend he's gonna look both sides equally.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #48 on: March 17, 2016, 11:09:20 AM »
This thread is over.
Here is some basic FLAT EARTH REALITY for all of you.


And we can't see the bottom of the buildings because?
Teacher, teacher, I know!
Perspective and Bendy Light!
What I would like to see is that same photo taken at different times of day. We have seen extreme cases that vary from a normal view to a Fata "Morgana" situation, but some more normal cases of varying refraction would be very useful.
As it both sides often "claim" evidence from the same photograph!

Also remember that ships' lookouts for centuries have used the visible horizon distance to estimate the range of other ships and land and that range varies in a fairly predictable way with eye height. The following is an extract from a USN Handbook ( ;D  Sorry, but I guess they are part of the conspiracy!   ;D)

Quote from: Lookout Training Handbook NAVEDTRA 12968-D
RANGE ESTIMATION
Question CIC concerning the radar ranges to visual contacts and compare them with your estimated range. 

The only readily available reference point you can use when estimating ranges is the horizon.  Knowing your height above the waterline will help you estimate ranges because the distance to the horizon varies with the height of the eye (Figure 5-5).
HEIGHT OF EYE
     RANGE TO   HORIZON
FEET
YARDS
MILES
20
10,200
5.1
40
14,400
7.2
60
17,800
8.9
80
20,600
10.3
Figure 5-5: Range – Height Table
At a height of 50 feet, for example, the distance to the horizon is about 16,000 yards (8 miles); at a height of 100 feet, the distance is about 23,000 yards (11-1/2 miles).  Practice estimating ranges to other vessels in company whose distances are known or can be easily determined. 
 
::) Do you think those poor sailors got confused when they found that the Navy had lied to them?  ::)

As an "ET" in the U.S. Navy, I have actually done that.I would go out on deck and observe passing ships, land,etc., and then go up in C.I.C. and check the range on the surface search radar. Those instructors in Boot Camp and ET school hadn't lied to me .......It worked !
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 11:54:03 AM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #49 on: March 17, 2016, 11:22:37 AM »
I suppose I am guilty of being a member of the Great Round Earth Conspiracy on two counts.

(1) The U.S. Navy- Measuring distance distances to the horizon by eye and ranges by radar.


(2) Amateur Radio Operators - Measuring the distance from the earth to the moon on "Moon Bounce".

LOL !
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 12:07:31 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #50 on: March 17, 2016, 10:47:47 PM »
If you are two people, one could use a bit of plywood. As long as the rangefinder and the plywood bit have the same relation to the towers at the ground and on the top (I don't know what the base looks like on these bridges, so it might be hard or not), like for example from the center of one tower to the center of the other, it should work well. So at the base you measure from the center (but stand to the left or right of the tower, it would be hard to stand inside them), and at the top you measure from the center.
It'd have to be a very small bit of plywood: avoid the laser going at any angle. Angles would mean quite a bit more distance on this scale. And if it's that small, good luck finding it.
Plus there's the matter of lining up position. You'd need the two towers to be identical (unlikely as humans built them), and be able to measure to the exact centre on both, which is hardly an easy thing to do simultaneously.
And you'd need to hold the rangefinder at the same point, relative to the other tower.
Or you can just set the rangefinder to point straight forwards (90° off the ground). It will add a little extra distance because it will still hit the plywood at an angle, as the earth is round. But if that happens, then that proves curvature. that, and the extra added distance from the towers being further apart.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2016, 04:18:14 AM »
Or you can just set the rangefinder to point straight forwards (90° off the ground). It will add a little extra distance because it will still hit the plywood at an angle, as the earth is round. But if that happens, then that proves curvature. that, and the extra added distance from the towers being further apart.
Except how would you measure ninety degrees from the ground when up the tower? Ninety degrees to the floor doesn't mean much: it's very rare that floor's perfectly level, especially if there are boards. Something similar holds for the ground.
Take golden gate bridge. Even if your horizontal or vertical angle is 0.02 degrees off (minuscule: one fiftieth of a degree), the approx 2700m distance would come out two inches longer. That could give false curvature on a FE or, if the mistake is made at ground level and corrected for higher up, would give FE or even concave Earth measurements.

It's just a matter of error. In any situation you're going to get bars either side: measuring something with a typical ruler, and it's maybe 1mm because nothing smaller can be measured. In statistics this kind of thing's called standard deviation: any result that falls within that standard deviation may as well be taken to be the same, in practise.
With such a small variation between FET and RET in this experiment, combined with comparing measurements on such a huge scale, while it's certainly theoretically possible, in practise it's not going to achieve anything. Even on a FE, a slight mistake in measurement which there are so many opportunities for (a tilted floorboard, a rangefinder at a slightly off horizontal angle even if it is ninety degrees from the ground, a slightly off distance from the end of the tower so you're measuring a different distance either way...) would give a larger distance. Likewise on a RE, if you measure the distance at ground level from a point just outside the tower, then you'd need to have the rangefinder out the window higher up the tower (or at least measure the distance to said point outside the tower and subtract it), and a mistake there might give FE measurements.

There's just too much that could go wrong.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #52 on: March 18, 2016, 08:41:13 AM »
Or you can just set the rangefinder to point straight forwards (90° off the ground). It will add a little extra distance because it will still hit the plywood at an angle, as the earth is round. But if that happens, then that proves curvature. that, and the extra added distance from the towers being further apart.
Except how would you measure ninety degrees from the ground when up the tower? Ninety degrees to the floor doesn't mean much: it's very rare that floor's perfectly level, especially if there are boards. Something similar holds for the ground.
Take golden gate bridge. Even if your horizontal or vertical angle is 0.02 degrees off (minuscule: one fiftieth of a degree), the approx 2700m distance would come out two inches longer. That could give false curvature on a FE or, if the mistake is made at ground level and corrected for higher up, would give FE or even concave Earth measurements.

It's just a matter of error. In any situation you're going to get bars either side: measuring something with a typical ruler, and it's maybe 1mm because nothing smaller can be measured. In statistics this kind of thing's called standard deviation: any result that falls within that standard deviation may as well be taken to be the same, in practise.
With such a small variation between FET and RET in this experiment, combined with comparing measurements on such a huge scale, while it's certainly theoretically possible, in practise it's not going to achieve anything. Even on a FE, a slight mistake in measurement which there are so many opportunities for (a tilted floorboard, a rangefinder at a slightly off horizontal angle even if it is ninety degrees from the ground, a slightly off distance from the end of the tower so you're measuring a different distance either way...) would give a larger distance. Likewise on a RE, if you measure the distance at ground level from a point just outside the tower, then you'd need to have the rangefinder out the window higher up the tower (or at least measure the distance to said point outside the tower and subtract it), and a mistake there might give FE measurements.

There's just too much that could go wrong.
Fair enough, didn't bother to do those maths.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #53 on: March 20, 2016, 08:13:11 AM »
Did you watch the video?
No, I have better things to do.
Yet here you are....
There's a fair difference between a couple of minutes' break on an oft-amusing site, and 45+ minutes on a video that likely contains nothing I haven't heard before.
But how would you be so inclined as to assume that there is "likely" no information in the video which could be new to you, if you have not watched it? Why the fuck are you even here arguing about the fact that he posted a video? Don't like it? Don't want to watch it? Then fuck off to a thread where you can actually have a say in the argument. In this case you don't because YOU are too lazy or just unwilling to observe what's being presented. Just like any other case in a debate between FE and RE, all you people do is snub out logic and honest opposition during debate. So if you don't have time to go over the video then again, go to a different thread that's only text, this guy hasn't done anything wrong by sharing a video. Hell even this video is more credible in explaining and supporting the idea of a round earth than any proof I've seen supporting the FE model.
“Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
-Bernhard Haisch, Astrophysicist

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #54 on: March 20, 2016, 11:19:17 AM »
But how would you be so inclined as to assume that there is "likely" no information in the video which could be new to you, if you have not watched it? Why the fuck are you even here arguing about the fact that he posted a video?
I'm pretty sure there won't be much new information because there very rarely is. I've been on this site for a while, there are only a few arguments actually used, and which are used by newcomers and veteran members alike. There are only a finite few kinds of arguments made, and I've heard them. Circumpolar stars, to the coriolis effect, to flight times/distances, to sunsets, to explanations of the moon and related phenomenon...
I posted, because there aren't many FEers active on the forum, and I try to save them the trouble of dealing with awful threads like this so people who have actually interesting questions can have their posts addressed. I'd much rather hear a description of how the celestial gears model actually works, or an explanation of eclipses, than hearing the perspective-answer to a ship going over the horizon, or the description of a spotlight Sun, or its orbit, for the umpteenth time.
Threads like this don't achieve anything. The OP likely knows there'll be no response because very few people have time to sit down and watch a 45 minute video, much less write up an intelligible reply, and even if they did I doubt there'd be much covered that hasn't been covered countless times before.

Quote
Don't like it? Don't want to watch it? Then fuck off to a thread where you can actually have a say in the argument. In this case you don't because YOU are too lazy or just unwilling to observe what's being presented. Just like any other case in a debate between FE and RE, all you people do is snub out logic and honest opposition during debate. So if you don't have time to go over the video then again, go to a different thread that's only text, this guy hasn't done anything wrong by sharing a video. Hell even this video is more credible in explaining and supporting the idea of a round earth than any proof I've seen supporting the FE model.
I'm a REer. That doesn't change the fact that this was a ridiculous thread. Dropping a link to a video that'd take multiple hours to respond to and being too lazy to elaborate on even one argument is not 'honest opposition.' RET has a strong position, no question, it can be defended without resorting to tired old repetition and absurdly long videos that you know won't get a response.
Sure, FE models are typically weak. That should make it easy for an argument to be made. Instead, we get completely stupid arguments, like referencing something no one wants to watch, or the "But completely unrelated objects are round!" argument that seems like it keeps making the rounds, or people who claim to see curvature from see level.
So, yes, I'm going to speak up when threads like this are made because they don't achieve anything.

*

JerkFace

  • 11110
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2016, 12:11:08 AM »
I'm pretty sure there won't be much new information because there very rarely is. I've been on this site for a while, there are only a few arguments actually used, and which are used by newcomers and veteran members alike.

What about direct measurement of the earth's curvature using simple instruments?    I don't recall seeing that covered anywhere else. 

To save you from having to abandon your maths research, I'll see if I can summarize the method used. 

You choose two points a known distance apart,  in this case he used two mile posts on a north south highway. 

You establish a line of sight between two markers at position A and B,  you then measure from that established sight line the angle to vertical,  ( the zenith angle ),  you then go to the other end of the sight line and measure from that same line to the vertical again,  the difference between the zenith angles at the two points is a direct measurement of curvature.   In the video he measured about one arc minute per mile.

So the only equipment needed is a means of accurately establishing vertical,  usually a plumb bob,  a means of measuring vertical angles to within a few arc seconds,  in this case a theodolite. 

« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 12:13:05 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2016, 05:04:58 AM »
What about direct measurement of the earth's curvature using simple instruments?    I don't recall seeing that covered anywhere else. 
It depends. The underlying principle of the argument is definitely pretty common: it's not necessarily measured in detail, but it could be. Similar idea to things vanishing bottom-up over the horizon, which certainly requires simpler instruments.
Even so, that specific argument takes maybe a couple of minutes of a 45 minute video. Hardly worth linking the whole thing.

Quote
To save you from having to abandon your maths research, I'll see if I can summarize the method used. 

You choose two points a known distance apart,  in this case he used two mile posts on a north south highway. 

You establish a line of sight between two markers at position A and B,  you then measure from that established sight line the angle to vertical,  ( the zenith angle ),  you then go to the other end of the sight line and measure from that same line to the vertical again,  the difference between the zenith angles at the two points is a direct measurement of curvature.   In the video he measured about one arc minute per mile.

So the only equipment needed is a means of accurately establishing vertical,  usually a plumb bob,  a means of measuring vertical angles to within a few arc seconds,  in this case a theodolite.
Depends what you mean by vertical angle. Generally that'd be calculated with respect to the Earth, in which case you'd get the same at either point, so I'm assuming it can't be that. If it's with respect to the Sun or something, then I have seen that before: a few people have used it to address the application of Eratosphenes in the FAQ pointing out that one consequence is that the distance to the Sun calculated from a flat plane varies wildly.

*

JerkFace

  • 11110
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2016, 05:50:03 AM »
What about direct measurement of the earth's curvature using simple instruments?    I don't recall seeing that covered anywhere else. 
It depends. The underlying principle of the argument is definitely pretty common: it's not necessarily measured in detail, but it could be. Similar idea to things vanishing bottom-up over the horizon, which certainly requires simpler instruments.
Even so, that specific argument takes maybe a couple of minutes of a 45 minute video. Hardly worth linking the whole thing.

Quote
To save you from having to abandon your maths research, I'll see if I can summarize the method used. 

You choose two points a known distance apart,  in this case he used two mile posts on a north south highway. 

You establish a line of sight between two markers at position A and B,  you then measure from that established sight line the angle to vertical,  ( the zenith angle ),  you then go to the other end of the sight line and measure from that same line to the vertical again,  the difference between the zenith angles at the two points is a direct measurement of curvature.   In the video he measured about one arc minute per mile.

So the only equipment needed is a means of accurately establishing vertical,  usually a plumb bob,  a means of measuring vertical angles to within a few arc seconds,  in this case a theodolite.
Depends what you mean by vertical angle. Generally that'd be calculated with respect to the Earth, in which case you'd get the same at either point, so I'm assuming it can't be that. If it's with respect to the Sun or something, then I have seen that before: a few people have used it to address the application of Eratosphenes in the FAQ pointing out that one consequence is that the distance to the Sun calculated from a flat plane varies wildly.

The angle between the sight line and the plumb line.   Nothing to do with the sun.   ( or the intervening terrain for that matter )  Effectively it measures directly the curvature with reference only to the differences in the inclination of a plumb line at two separated points.   I'm surprised you didn't understand that right off.


PS. Just for kicks,  you can do the following calculation,   since the measured inclination change was one minute per mile,  that means 60 miles per degree,  since arc length = rΘ   and Θ = π/180 radians, 
So the radius of the earth r = 60*180/π  approx 3500 miles,  not a bad estimate for such a primitive method.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 06:26:48 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2016, 11:05:24 AM »
The angle between the sight line and the plumb line.   Nothing to do with the sun.   ( or the intervening terrain for that matter )  Effectively it measures directly the curvature with reference only to the differences in the inclination of a plumb line at two separated points.   I'm surprised you didn't understand that right off.
Ah, right, so it's measuring with respect to a vertical line at another point, to gauge how much said point's shifted. That does seem to pretty much be the same principle as the sinking ship illusion, or buildings on the horizon. A handwaved mention of bendy light and you've got untrustworthy measurements, and the conclusions are moot for any FEer.
In my defence, I had only just woken up when I made that last post.

*

JerkFace

  • 11110
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2016, 05:01:34 PM »
The angle between the sight line and the plumb line.   Nothing to do with the sun.   ( or the intervening terrain for that matter )  Effectively it measures directly the curvature with reference only to the differences in the inclination of a plumb line at two separated points.   I'm surprised you didn't understand that right off.
Ah, right, so it's measuring with respect to a vertical line at another point, to gauge how much said point's shifted. That does seem to pretty much be the same principle as the sinking ship illusion, or buildings on the horizon. A handwaved mention of bendy light and you've got untrustworthy measurements, and the conclusions are moot for any FEer.
In my defence, I had only just woken up when I made that last post.

No,   nothing remotely similar to the sinking ship,   first off how would you measure the earth's radius by observing a ship going over the horizon?  You would never be sure what refractive effects to allow for, and the flat earthers would revert to the perspective vanishing and waves blocking distant objects.  Similarily for buildings on the horizon.   

Bendy light isn't going to help explain how plumb lines are measurably inclined over distances as short as a mile.   The equipment required to measure the radius of the earth  is simple and the method basic.

I don't expect any flat earthers to respond,  nothing they could say anyway.




Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.