Flat Earth Reality

I normally don't like threads that just link to a video and offer nothing concrete,  but this one popped up in another thread,  linked to by Woody ( thanks Woody )
And is worthy of it's own thread and separate discussion, he raises some interesting points.

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

I normally don't like threads that just link to a video and offer nothing concrete,  but this one popped up in another thread,  linked to by Woody ( thanks Woody )
And is worthy of it's own thread and separate discussion, he raises some interesting points.

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

Hi Ray,

I watched you video and it was interesting. I know very little about surveying, probably just enough to get me in trouble for bring up this issue or my thoughts on the subject. I know enough that they do use triangulation to measure areas that they can't get to easily by measuring clearing they can get to easily. That is the way they surveyed my property one time. They didn't want to go in the woods, so they used a clear field to measure and then they could find the length through the woods.

At around 17 or 18 minutes the video guy brought up plane triangles and that there angles add up to 180^O and he brought up spherical excess where the angles add up to be >180^O and this was because the Earth was round. I seen where this has been brought up before on this forum. I can understand this on a curved surface.

Then he doesn't mention this anymore. All he talks about then on is plane triangles to measure the Earth. He shows maps where they use plane triangles to measure the land and tall structures. To me, it wouldn't make sense to measure the earth using plane triangles if the Earth is round because none of the triangles would add up to 180^Oand all the measurements would be off by a certain amount. It looks to me we should be using the other triangle, the one that it's angles are greater than 180^O and by how much greater would they be? How would you find that out? It may be okay to use plane triangles to survey your property, but to survey a country, it looks the wrong method to me.

This is just me thinking again, I know in my bones you are going to steer straight again.

I normally don't like threads that just link to a video and offer nothing concrete,  but this one popped up in another thread,  linked to by Woody ( thanks Woody )
And is worthy of it's own thread and separate discussion, he raises some interesting points.

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

Watched the video.
It will be dismissed by the FE crowd.
It's unfortunate that he got sarcastic near the end.
Shoulda stuck to just presenting his measurements and left it at that.

he raises some interesting points.

Why don't you raise those points then?
If you don't like posts that do little more than dump a video link, don't assume you're the exception to that rule. if there are good points in a video, take the radical step of outlining them. I'm with the FEers. I'm not in the mood to stop whatever I'm doing, pause music etc and sit down for 45 minutes of what's statistically likely to be an argument that's already been done to death.
If you can't be bothered to write an argument down, don't expect anyone to be bothered to write down a response. Don't expect the others on the forum to do any more than you'd do: it's a good general rule.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 12, 2016, 08:56:31 PM

he raises some interesting points.

Why don't you raise those points then?
If you don't like posts that do little more than dump a video link, don't assume you're the exception to that rule. if there are good points in a video, take the radical step of outlining them. I'm with the FEers. I'm not in the mood to stop whatever I'm doing, pause music etc and sit down for 45 minutes of what's statistically likely to be an argument that's already been done to death.
If you can't be bothered to write an argument down, don't expect anyone to be bothered to write down a response. Don't expect the others on the forum to do any more than you'd do: it's a good general rule.

Did you watch the video?

I saw the original presentation.  I thought it was an excellent video, clear and simply.  Of course he proved with his own equipment that there was indeed curvature and then debunked other assumptions made by FE'ers in other videos.  It was really helpful that he included the 300 years of Geodetic Surveying experience, which was the basis for creation of the world's maps.  IF any FE'er wants to question this video then they should go out and get certified as a Geodetic Surveyor, test distances themselves and demonstrate that curvature does not exist and then prove why in multiple tests.  Even if you question this video it does not explain the millions of surveyed calculations taken over the past 300 years.  The math works or it does not work, and it appears to work.  Case closed. 

Quote from: Jane on March 13, 2016, 04:15:30 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 12, 2016, 08:56:31 PM

he raises some interesting points.

Why don't you raise those points then?
If you don't like posts that do little more than dump a video link, don't assume you're the exception to that rule. if there are good points in a video, take the radical step of outlining them. I'm with the FEers. I'm not in the mood to stop whatever I'm doing, pause music etc and sit down for 45 minutes of what's statistically likely to be an argument that's already been done to death.
If you can't be bothered to write an argument down, don't expect anyone to be bothered to write down a response. Don't expect the others on the forum to do any more than you'd do: it's a good general rule.

Did you watch the video?

The 45 minute length is quite discouraging, so It'd be nice if you listed at least a few of those good points, and maybe time markers. Or a small explanation of the video (reading the comments now, I understand that it is probably quite interesting, so I'll probably watch it later).

Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2016, 09:09:05 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 13, 2016, 04:15:30 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 12, 2016, 08:56:31 PM

he raises some interesting points.

Why don't you raise those points then?
If you don't like posts that do little more than dump a video link, don't assume you're the exception to that rule. if there are good points in a video, take the radical step of outlining them. I'm with the FEers. I'm not in the mood to stop whatever I'm doing, pause music etc and sit down for 45 minutes of what's statistically likely to be an argument that's already been done to death.
If you can't be bothered to write an argument down, don't expect anyone to be bothered to write down a response. Don't expect the others on the forum to do any more than you'd do: it's a good general rule.

Did you watch the video?

The 45 minute length is quite discouraging, so It'd be nice if you listed at least a few of those good points, and maybe time markers. Or a small explanation of the video (reading the comments now, I understand that it is probably quite interesting, so I'll probably watch it later).

I'd rather you watched it,  he systematically proves the earth is a globe,  with very basic instruments, and explains the principles of geodetic surveying.   

As odvetnik_irsic says,  it's the simplest and clearest video proving the earth is a globe. 

Quote from: Rayzor on March 12, 2016, 08:56:31 PM

I normally don't like threads that just link to a video and offer nothing concrete,  but this one popped up in another thread,  linked to by Woody ( thanks Woody )
And is worthy of it's own thread and separate discussion, he raises some interesting points.

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

Hi Ray,

I watched you video and it was interesting. I know very little about surveying, probably just enough to get me in trouble for bring up this issue or my thoughts on the subject. I know enough that they do use triangulation to measure areas that they can't get to easily by measuring clearing they can get to easily. That is the way they surveyed my property one time. They didn't want to go in the woods, so they used a clear field to measure and then they could find the length through the woods.

At around 17 or 18 minutes the video guy brought up plane triangles and that there angles add up to 180^O and he brought up spherical excess where the angles add up to be >180^O and this was because the Earth was round. I seen where this has been brought up before on this forum. I can understand this on a curved surface.

Then he doesn't mention this anymore. All he talks about then on is plane triangles to measure the Earth. He shows maps where they use plane triangles to measure the land and tall structures. To me, it wouldn't make sense to measure the earth using plane triangles if the Earth is round because none of the triangles would add up to 180^Oand all the measurements would be off by a certain amount. It looks to me we should be using the other triangle, the one that it's angles are greater than 180^O and by how much greater would they be? How would you find that out? It may be okay to use plane triangles to survey your property, but to survey a country, it looks the wrong method to me.

This is just me thinking again, I know in my bones you are going to steer straight again.

I was going to link you to some real surveying data,  then I thought, a better idea would be for you to look up the survey data for your own local area, that will tell you where the reference points are and what the baseline locations are, you can then go to those survey markers and verify the data personally.   

Try to get older surveys,  if you find the more modern ones are GPS based.

Where the distances are less than 3 or 4 km,  then that is regarded as a plane survey, greater than that it is a geodetic survey.

I would suggest these parts of the video:

14:00-18:05 Spherical Excess

25:30- 33:55  Talks about mistakes made in many FE videos make determining curvature and conducts his own measurements.

I would suggest these parts of the video:

14:00-18:05 Spherical Excess

25:30- 33:55  Talks about mistakes made in many FE videos make determining curvature and conducts his own measurements.

Thanks!

Did you watch the video?

No, I have better things to do.
Not everyone's in a position to watch videos (not alone, on phone with limited battery...) and even so they take far longer to make a point that can be made in writing. Plus if they're busy in real life (as I am) dedicating 45 minutes plus pauses/rewatches if anything's not understood first time is more of an investment than I can afford for a week or so.
Seriously, why is it you refuse to write down a point?

If Woody's references make sense, then it sounds easily possible to actually note down highlights. if it makes you feel better, link to the video at the end as a source/further information, but if you're on a text-based forum consider actually using text.
You expect people to write down responses, do them the courtesy of writing in turn. Just dropping a link when you yourself said you don't like those kinds of posts is a winning combination of laziness, hypocrisy and just generally being annoying. If there's a good argument, write it down.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2016, 09:09:05 PM

Did you watch the video?

No, I have better things to do.
Not everyone's in a position to watch videos (not alone, on phone with limited battery...) and even so they take far longer to make a point that can be made in writing. Plus if they're busy in real life (as I am) dedicating 45 minutes plus pauses/rewatches if anything's not understood first time is more of an investment than I can afford for a week or so.
Seriously, why is it you refuse to write down a point?

If Woody's references make sense, then it sounds easily possible to actually note down highlights. if it makes you feel better, link to the video at the end as a source/further information, but if you're on a text-based forum consider actually using text.
You expect people to write down responses, do them the courtesy of writing in turn. Just dropping a link when you yourself said you don't like those kinds of posts is a winning combination of laziness, hypocrisy and just generally being annoying. If there's a good argument, write it down.

Ok,  so you are too busy to watch it.  No problem.  I didn't expect responses from people who haven't watched it.   

Ok,  so you are too busy to watch it.  No problem.  I didn't expect responses from people who haven't watched it.

Then don't expect any responses (which makes posting it rather pointless).

Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2016, 09:09:05 PM

Did you watch the video?

No, I have better things to do.

Yet here you are....

Quote from: Jane on March 14, 2016, 02:36:43 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2016, 09:09:05 PM

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.

I know, I'm just messing.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2016, 02:48:04 AM

Ok,  so you are too busy to watch it.  No problem.  I didn't expect responses from people who haven't watched it.

Then don't expect any responses (which makes posting it rather pointless).

Not as pointless as responding if you haven't a clue what it's about. 

Quote from: Jane on March 14, 2016, 02:50:53 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2016, 02:48:04 AM

Ok,  so you are too busy to watch it.  No problem.  I didn't expect responses from people who haven't watched it.

Then don't expect any responses (which makes posting it rather pointless).

Not as pointless as responding if you haven't a clue what it's about.

Except I'm not responding to it, I'm responding to the laziness of expecting people to respond to something you refuse to write out.

Then he doesn't mention this anymore. All he talks about then on is plane triangles to measure the Earth. He shows maps where they use plane triangles to measure the land and tall structures. To me, it wouldn't make sense to measure the earth using plane triangles if the Earth is round because none of the triangles would add up to 180^Oand all the measurements would be off by a certain amount. It looks to me we should be using the other triangle, the one that it's angles are greater than 180^O and by how much greater would they be? How would you find that out? It may be okay to use plane triangles to survey your property, but to survey a country, it looks the wrong method to me.

This is just me thinking again, I know in my bones you are going to steer straight again.

When you think of the way a surveyor works, each individual triangle is always made up of 3 straight lines, so on its own is a plane triangle (any triangle is a plane figure). It is only when you cover a large area with a grid of such triangles covering a curved surface that a shperical excess can be seen.

I can't do it now, but I might try to find (or draw - if I'm silly enough) an example.  There were some of India in the video.

Professional surveyor makes Good video demonstration, with Clear and easy to understand explainations. Earth is round. 

Great video!

I would like to point out one important thing that this video in its way demonstrates. Several months ago, before JRowe had a website for his Dual Earth Theory (sic) - should be Fantasy - he wanted to teach it by PMing him. His justification was that there was a lot of trolling on this site (there is), and that way he could get the point across better for truly interested people. I get it... but... as I pointed out to him, that is also information control and "divide and conquer". If anyone brought up a problem, no one else would see it unless JRowe disseminated it... which leads to this video...

Most people have "specialties" or are experienced in various disciplines. *I* happen to know a thing or two about amateur astronomy (visual, photographic, telescopic - not the theory of the universe/planets stuff). The guy on the video knows geodetic surveying. Other people know mathematics, are pilots or air traffic controllers, etc. and can make comments from what they know (personal experience). From what I see, virtually every discipline has problems with a FE. Personally, I can say that the sky is wrong - astronomically speaking - and CAN NOT be fixed on a FE. It is therefore very important that everyone can see what is wrong from different disciplines.

Bravo Geodetic Surveying! Yet another nail in the FE coffin (the FE coffin is made of ONLY nails - no wood).

Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2016, 09:09:05 PM

Did you watch the video?

No, I have better things to do.
Not everyone's in a position to watch videos (not alone, on phone with limited battery...) and even so they take far longer to make a point that can be made in writing. Plus if they're busy in real life (as I am) dedicating 45 minutes plus pauses/rewatches if anything's not understood first time is more of an investment than I can afford for a week or so.
Seriously, why is it you refuse to write down a point?

If Woody's references make sense, then it sounds easily possible to actually note down highlights. if it makes you feel better, link to the video at the end as a source/further information, but if you're on a text-based forum consider actually using text.
You expect people to write down responses, do them the courtesy of writing in turn. Just dropping a link when you yourself said you don't like those kinds of posts is a winning combination of laziness, hypocrisy and just generally being annoying. If there's a good argument, write it down.

I watched the video.
It was interesting but way too long and the sarcasm was unnecessary.
It did make me think of what should be a fairly easy experiment, if you are a surveyor or know one.
Unfortunately I fail on both points.

Surveyor measures the distance from building A to building B at say 50 ft up, or the 5th floor for simplicity sake.
Go up 5 floors and take another measurement.

On a FE the distances should be the same.
On a RE the second measurement should be longer.
If the 2nd measurement is shorter, that would be wild.

Any surveyors out there?

I watched the video.
It was interesting but way too long and the sarcasm was unnecessary.
It did make me think of what should be a fairly easy experiment, if you are a surveyor or know one.
Unfortunately I fail on both points.

Surveyor measures the distance from building A to building B at say 50 ft up, or the 5th floor for simplicity sake.
Go up 5 floors and take another measurement.

On a FE the distances should be the same.
On a RE the second measurement should be longer.
If the 2nd measurement is shorter, that would be wild.

Any surveyors out there?

That's... not an easy experiment.
Two such buildings enough of a distance apart that the measurement will be different enough, measuring the distance 50 feet in the air... With permissions etc...
Easiest experiments are to take a trip to Antarctica to see the 24 hour Sun, or to the equator to see circumpolar stars around two points, or just taking a trip to the beach and trying to see a ship with a telescope once it's gone over the horizon. Or performing Eratosphenes' experiment at several points, to see if the given distance to the Sun is consistent.

Well, I finally made time in my busy life to watch the stupid video.  I am only about 15 minutes in, and all I can say is oh my god, this guy is boring as hell.  I can sum up this guy's knowledge by quoting him... "The conditions are better for viewing at night."  lol

Well, I finally made time in my busy life to watch the stupid video.  I am only about 15 minutes in, and all I can say is oh my god, this guy is boring as hell.  I can sum up this guy's knowledge by quoting him... "The conditions are better for viewing at night."  lol

Didn't think you'd be interested in measurements that prove the shape of the earth!
"The conditions are better for viewing at night." - yes, because a light 30 or so kilometers is easy to find at night and the air is more stable at night. Bit technical for a janitor!

Quote from: ER22 on March 14, 2016, 05:15:33 PM

I watched the video.
It was interesting but way too long and the sarcasm was unnecessary.
It did make me think of what should be a fairly easy experiment, if you are a surveyor or know one.
Unfortunately I fail on both points.

Surveyor measures the distance from building A to building B at say 50 ft up, or the 5th floor for simplicity sake.
Go up 5 floors and take another measurement.

On a FE the distances should be the same.



On a RE the second measurement should be longer.
If the 2nd measurement is shorter, that would be wild.

Any surveyors out there?

That's... not an easy experiment.
Two such buildings enough of a distance apart that the measurement will be different enough, measuring the distance 50 feet in the air... With permissions etc...
Easiest experiments are to take a trip to Antarctica to see the 24 hour Sun, or to the equator to see circumpolar stars around two points, or just taking a trip to the beach and trying to see a ship with a telescope once it's gone over the horizon. Or performing Eratosphenes' experiment at several points, to see if the given distance to the Sun is consistent.

The point I was trying to make was a surveyor should be able to measure the distance between 2 buildings and figure out if they are parallel to each other. Whatever those measurements or how you do it, I don't know. As I said I'm not a surveyor.
For me flying to Antarctica is not an option.
Circumpolar stars around 2 points? Over my head.
Don't know from Eratosphene.
I've seen ships, shore whatever disappear over the horizon and been told it's cause of refraction or just ignored.

I'm curious, just hypothetically, how far apart would the buildings have to be to say the measurements are accurate?

Any surveyors out there that believe in a FE?

Quote from: Jane on March 15, 2016, 01:08:13 AM

Quote from: ER22 on March 14, 2016, 05:15:33 PM

I watched the video.
It was interesting but way too long and the sarcasm was unnecessary.
It did make me think of what should be a fairly easy experiment, if you are a surveyor or know one.
Unfortunately I fail on both points.

Surveyor measures the distance from building A to building B at say 50 ft up, or the 5th floor for simplicity sake.
Go up 5 floors and take another measurement.

On a FE the distances should be the same.



On a RE the second measurement should be longer.
If the 2nd measurement is shorter, that would be wild.

Any surveyors out there?

That's... not an easy experiment.
Two such buildings enough of a distance apart that the measurement will be different enough, measuring the distance 50 feet in the air... With permissions etc...
Easiest experiments are to take a trip to Antarctica to see the 24 hour Sun, or to the equator to see circumpolar stars around two points, or just taking a trip to the beach and trying to see a ship with a telescope once it's gone over the horizon. Or performing Eratosphenes' experiment at several points, to see if the given distance to the Sun is consistent.

The point I was trying to make was a surveyor should be able to measure the distance between 2 buildings and figure out if they are parallel to each other. Whatever those measurements or how you do it, I don't know. As I said I'm not a surveyor.
For me flying to Antarctica is not an option.
Circumpolar stars around 2 points? Over my head.
Don't know from Eratosphene.
I've seen ships, shore whatever disappear over the horizon and been told it's cause of refraction or just ignored.

I'm curious, just hypothetically, how far apart would the buildings have to be to say the measurements are accurate?

Any surveyors out there that believe in a FE?

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).

This thread is over.

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






http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehuston/124639197/#

Not only can we see the next tallest building in the Toronto skyline, 298 meters, but also other skycrapers, like the Commerce Court West, 239 meters.

DISTANCE ROCHESTER NY TO TORONTO: 152.5 KM

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=421

CN Tower height = ~520 meters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Toronto

Next tallest building: 298 meters


The tallest building in Rochester measures only 135 meters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Rochester,_New_York

View from above of Rochester: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rochester_aerial_aug_17_2007.jpg


CURVATURE FOR THE 152.2 KM DISTANCE: 454 METERS

ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS VIEW, ON A ROUND EARTH; there is no curvature over the lake Ontario, between Rochester and Toronto.

LET US NOW USE THE FORMULA FOR A 135 METER (HIGHEST POSSIBLE IN ROCHESTER) ALTITUDE FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHER:

WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING UNDER 960 METERS, FROM ROCHESTER NY, FROM A HEIGHT OF 135 METERS, OVER THIS DISTANCE!


Let us also include the fact that Rochester is 80 meters above the level of Lake Ontario.

THE VISUAL OBSTACLE WILL MEASURE 756 METERS.

On a round earth, NOTHING could be seen under 756 meters; yet, we see the details that could be viewed only on a flat earth.


CURVATURE

C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians


R = 6378,164 km

s = distance



VISUAL OBSTACLE




BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h²]^1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = AE = altitude of observer

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.