# What is wrong with this?

• 84 Replies
• 14867 Views
?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### What is wrong with this?
« on: August 02, 2018, 09:23:53 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?

?

#### Didymus

• 179
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2018, 10:07:12 AM »
10 foot pole, or 10 feet taller than the observer eye level?

#### NotSoSkeptical

• 8548
• Flat like a droplet of water.
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2018, 10:31:37 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?

No.  Only the height of the poll that extends from the object's visible base to the top is used in the measurement.

SO.. Using your information and assuming that 3 inches of the pole cover the object's visible base to height.  The height of the object from your position is ~141 miles above the surface of the earth compared to you.  Then you need to add the drop from the earth's curvature and the elevation that you are standing at above sea level for it's actual height.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 10:47:15 AM by NotSoSkeptical »
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42762
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2018, 11:05:20 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Where is the eye level of the observer relative to the 10 foot pole?  Also, are you assuming a round earth or a flat earth?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2018, 03:48:55 AM »
10 foot pole, or 10 feet taller than the observer eye level?
It is ten feet to the top of the pole from ground level.

The observer is standing three feet away from the pole.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2018, 03:49:47 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?

No.  Only the height of the poll that extends from the object's visible base to the top is used in the measurement.

SO.. Using your information and assuming that 3 inches of the pole cover the object's visible base to height.  The height of the object from your position is ~141 miles above the surface of the earth compared to you.  Then you need to add the drop from the earth's curvature and the elevation that you are standing at above sea level for it's actual height.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2018, 03:51:15 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Where is the eye level of the observer relative to the 10 foot pole?  Also, are you assuming a round earth or a flat earth?
How are either of the questions you write here relevant to the OP?

#### boydster

• Assistant to the Regional Manager
• Planar Moderator
• 17769
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2018, 04:58:02 AM »
The angle of the hypotenuse will be affected by the height of the observer

#### sokarul

• 19303
• Extra Racist
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2018, 05:04:14 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Middle school trigonometry is too tough?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2018, 05:38:27 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Middle school trigonometry is too tough?
Considering I wrote a simple question and you failed to provide a yes or no answer, one could conclude reading comprehension is a much more difficult barrier for you than math is for me...

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2018, 05:47:02 AM »
The angle of the hypotenuse will be affected by the height of the observer
I fail to see how that has anything to do with the math boydster.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2018, 05:50:11 AM by totallackey »

#### sokarul

• 19303
• Extra Racist
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2018, 05:50:13 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Middle school trigonometry is too tough?
Considering I wrote a simple question and you failed to provide a yes or no answer, one could conclude reading comprehension is a much more difficult barrier for you than math is for me...

You have shit information.

Were your distances the hypotenuse or were they simplified as just side A?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2018, 05:54:46 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Middle school trigonometry is too tough?
Considering I wrote a simple question and you failed to provide a yes or no answer, one could conclude reading comprehension is a much more difficult barrier for you than math is for me...

You have shit information.

Were your distances the hypotenuse or were they simplified as just side A?
Show your math first gauge pocketer...

Neither the length nor the angle of the hypotenuse has anything to do with the results and demonstrates you have no clue how the height of an object over the surface of the earth can be determined by the method proposed.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2018, 05:56:26 AM »
10 foot pole, or 10 feet taller than the observer eye level?
It is ten feet to the top of the pole from ground level.

The observer is standing three feet away from the pole.
What is the height of the observer's eyes? It matters.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2018, 06:06:25 AM »
10 foot pole, or 10 feet taller than the observer eye level?
It is ten feet to the top of the pole from ground level.

The observer is standing three feet away from the pole.
What is the height of the observer's eyes? It matters.
I do not think so and here is why.

The observer (unless he is Robert Wadlow, nearly ten feet tall) would have eyes positioned along the angle of the hypotenuse (in this case the imaginary line formed by top of the object extending to the top of the pole and then to the eye of the observer, then through to the ground).

How drastic an affect could that have?

For instance, mountain top calculation...

Peak observed from a distance of 80 feet away.

10 foot pole erected.

25 feet further away, observer can see the top of the pole and the top of the peak.

105/25 = x/10
« Last Edit: August 03, 2018, 06:11:46 AM by totallackey »

#### sokarul

• 19303
• Extra Racist
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2018, 06:12:47 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Middle school trigonometry is too tough?
Considering I wrote a simple question and you failed to provide a yes or no answer, one could conclude reading comprehension is a much more difficult barrier for you than math is for me...

You have shit information.

Were your distances the hypotenuse or were they simplified as just side A?
Show your math first gauge pocketer...

Neither the length nor the angle of the hypotenuse has anything to do with the results and demonstrates you have no clue how the height of an object over the surface of the earth can be determined by the method proposed.
Here.
No math needed. Answer is no.
The hight will be less than the hypotenuse. So the answer is a number less than 1700.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2018, 06:18:44 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Middle school trigonometry is too tough?
Considering I wrote a simple question and you failed to provide a yes or no answer, one could conclude reading comprehension is a much more difficult barrier for you than math is for me...

You have shit information.

Were your distances the hypotenuse or were they simplified as just side A?
Show your math first gauge pocketer...

Neither the length nor the angle of the hypotenuse has anything to do with the results and demonstrates you have no clue how the height of an object over the surface of the earth can be determined by the method proposed.
Here.
No math needed. Answer is no.
The hight will be less than the hypotenuse. So the answer is a number less than 1700.
You have no clue what you are writing about so just STFU and GTFO the board.

The 1700 miles to the object in question is both VERIFIED AND PROVEN!

It is the height of the object over the Earth's surface that is in question here.

Please just stop typing before I get suspended or banned.

Plus, it will make you look less st---- f---ish if you do.

#### sokarul

• 19303
• Extra Racist
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2018, 06:22:39 AM »
Yes. If the distance to the object from an observer is 1700 miles. That is side c. A2+B2=C2. So side b, which is height , is smaller than c.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2018, 06:30:51 AM »
Yes. If the distance to the object from an observer is 1700 miles. That is side c. A2+B2=C2. So side b, which is height , is smaller than c.
Look at the post again and point out where you think the distance to the object is measured along the line of the hypotenuse?

The distance to the object is measured using side B.

In my example, the object would be at the top of the vertical line of the triangle, side A.

Side B is the flat line at the bottom of the triangle.

Side C is the hypotenuse of the triangle and forms the line intersecting the top of the pole and view of the observer.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2018, 06:35:18 AM by totallackey »

#### sokarul

• 19303
• Extra Racist
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2018, 06:33:42 AM »
...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2018, 06:40:04 AM »
...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Proof positive the gauge pocketer is a bot and has ZERO ability to comprehend basic english.

Nothing in the OP indicates the hypotenuse could possibly be utilized as providing the 1700 mile distance to the object...

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42762
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2018, 06:52:55 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Where is the eye level of the observer relative to the 10 foot pole?  Also, are you assuming a round earth or a flat earth?
How are either of the questions you write here relevant to the OP?
If you were to draw a diagram of your setup, then the relevance would be clear.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2018, 06:57:07 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Where is the eye level of the observer relative to the 10 foot pole?  Also, are you assuming a round earth or a flat earth?
How are either of the questions you write here relevant to the OP?
If you were to draw a diagram of your setup, then the relevance would be clear.
Yeah right.

If it was relevant you would have the drawing up already.

I have one sketched out right in front of me...

You got a problem with the math or not...

#### hoppy

• Flat Earth Believer
• 11803
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2018, 07:00:54 AM »
10 ft to the top of a plumb, vertical pole, 3 feet away from the observer...

Object 1700 miles away and the top of the 10 ft pole can be seen along with the top of the object.

Object then computes to have a height of just over 5600 miles above the surface of the Earth...

Math is correct, right?
Middle school trigonometry is too tough.
I ftfy since punctuation is so confusing to you.

#### sokarul

• 19303
• Extra Racist
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2018, 07:04:36 AM »
Ok so an object 1700 miles away in the x direction. The top of the object, being further away, is at an unknown height. Using similar triangles the height will be 1700/3 * 10. So 5666.7 miles.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### sokarul

• 19303
• Extra Racist
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2018, 07:20:44 AM »
Now that we did your homework. How does a really tall building have to do with a flat earth?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

#### Cartog

• 538
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2018, 08:01:18 AM »
I have to admit that I have trouble understanding the original question and that my math skills are not too good, BUT the view from the top of the Empire State Building goes only about 250 miles to the horizon.

The fact that the higher up you go the farther is the horizon, seems to me very persuasive evidence that the Earth is Round.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2018, 09:06:37 AM »
Now that we did your homework. How does a really tall building have to do with a flat earth?
This OP does not reference a really tall building.

It references the sun overhead, utilizing timeanddate to know where the sun is located over the earth at a specific time.

Any person could view a light overhead and if they drop a plumb line down from that light to the floor, mark that spot and then move away from that spot on the floor to a separate place, they could then calculate the height of the light above the floor using the same method.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2018, 09:08:41 AM »
I have to admit that I have trouble understanding the original question and that my math skills are not too good, BUT the view from the top of the Empire State Building goes only about 250 miles to the horizon.

The fact that the higher up you go the farther is the horizon, seems to me very persuasive evidence that the Earth is Round.
Then you would be admitting a person could see the observation deck of the Empire State Building from a mutual spot on the surface of the Earth.

Yet we know that many times that is not the case so the point you make is moot.

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: What is wrong with this?
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2018, 09:13:58 AM »
Ok so an object 1700 miles away in the x direction. The top of the object, being further away, is at an unknown height. Using similar triangles the height will be 1700/3 * 10. So 5666.7 miles.
The top of the object is not further away than the bottom of the object...