The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Jane on March 20, 2015, 06:22:39 PM
-
Hi! First post on this particular branch of the site, though I've been hanging around the sister site for a while longer. This seems to be the place to come for actual answers.
Or Southern Hemiplane, depending where you put the centre at. Whichever way, on a Flat Earth it would be a circle with a circumference at, for example, the equator. Under regular FET, it's just part of a larger disk, but it's still a circle.
Of course, it doesn't need to be an exact circle, but a circle's the best-case scenario.
Now we get onto maths. I'm studying it, and there's something known as the 'Isoperimetric Inequality'. I can give you a proof of that if you really want, but it's fairly long, and pretty advanced: unless every mathematician is knowingly in on the conspiracy, however, it should be worth noting it has been around since the 19th century (rigorously proven), and known generally for much longer. You're more than welcome to look it up, there are several proofs online.
Essentially, it's a relationship between the boundary of a shape, and its volume: but we only need to worry about the two-dimensional case. That is, with a flat shape, with perimeter, and area.
The inequality provides a bound: the area of a shape can be no larger than a certain function of area. The inequality is:
L2 >= 4pi*A
Where L is the length of the perimeter, A is the area. Equality holds only with a circle: what this means is, as we know the length of the equator, we can calculate the largest possible size of the hemiplane contained within it on a flat Earth. Strictly speaking we just need to calculate the area of a circle with that circumference, but it's nicer to use the inequality form as it shows explicitly we're concerned with an upper bound.
The equator has length of approximately 40,000km. Plug that into the inequality, we find:
A <= 127323954.5km2
Or around 0.13 billion (the American kind).
Just for fun, we can also note that's also approximately the area of a circle with said circumference (rounding errors aside).
Anyway, that gives us the largest possible area for the inner hemiplane. For comparison's sake, that's little more than the area of Afro-Eurasia: one supercontinent which mostly takes up a third of the northern hemiplane. It's also about half the area of what we'd expect on a spherical Earth, after a hasty calculation (and while the Earth is not perfectly spherical, I rounded the FE number up and the RE number down). Even if there's some concave/vexity, that's one hell of an error bar.
So, can we blame this all on the conspiracy? Is every number we've been given wrong? Are you suggesting not one cartographer, pilot or anyone has noticed that the distances, calculated by Round Earth numbers, fall drastically short? If anyone wants to work out the speeds at which planes would have to be travelling under FET given the area of the necessary hemiplane, you're welcome to; might be too short to keep lift, I don't know offhand.
Or is all of maths just wrong?
-
How did you determine the length of the equator?
-
BiJane, I presume? Like I asked before, why are you assuming that the Earth disc is a perfect circle?
-
How did you determine the length of the equator?
I used an existing, known measurement based on the fact that, if the true value was radically different (as it seems to need to be), then such things as the distance to said equator will also shift greatly, and you've still got plenty of issues that really should've been noticed by now.
If you want, I'll calculate the size of the equator you'd need, assuming the best case scenario of a perfect circle?
I make that about 56000km, so you've got error bars of over a third given what the assumed length is.
As I said initially:
So, can we blame this all on the conspiracy? Is every number we've been given wrong? Are you suggesting not one cartographer, pilot or anyone has noticed that the distances, calculated by Round Earth numbers, fall drastically short? If anyone wants to work out the speeds at which planes would have to be travelling under FET given the area of the necessary hemiplane, you're welcome to; might be too short to keep lift, I don't know offhand.
Or is all of maths just wrong?
You can say the numbers are wrong, but that doesn't explain how such a huge incongruity hasn't been noticed: especially given, according to this site, there's no Flat Earth conspiracy, just a space travel one.
why are you assuming that the Earth disc is a perfect circle?
Assume it's not if you want: that makes the numbers worse. I explained this in the main post: the circle is the best case scenario. If you're saying it's convex/cave instead, I can happily give you a degree of roundness which would explain the measurements, but you won't like it.
-
Assume it's not if you want: that makes the numbers worse. I explained this in the main post: the circle is the best case scenario. If you're saying it's convex/cave instead, I can happily give you a degree of roundness which would explain the measurements, but you won't like it.
I'm not saying what it is specifically, but I know it's not a perfect circle. Clearly the flight times add up on a flat Earth, since I've been on a plane (and I assume you have as well). All I know is that it's not a perfect circle. You can assume whatever you want, but when you base math around assumptions (because you lack the knowledge on the true shape of the Earth) then this is theory crafting at best and not evidence or a refutation of anything.
-
I'm not saying what it is specifically, but I know it's not a perfect circle. Clearly the flight times add up on a flat Earth, since I've been on a plane (and I assume you have as well). All I know is that it's not a perfect circle. You can assume whatever you want, but when you base math around assumptions (because you lack the knowledge on the true shape of the Earth) then this is theory crafting at best and not evidence or a refutation of anything.
Once again, I'm not relying on it being a perfect circle in any way, shape or form.
If it is a 2-D shape, the isoperimetric inequality I gave holds: that is, the largest possible area (still way too small) is given by a perfect circle. if it's not a perfect circle, your area shrinks even more. Just gets better for me.
If it is a 3-D shape, you've just successfully argued for RET.
-
But you are relying on the assumption that it is circular, no?
-
But you are relying on the assumption that it is circular, no?
Once again, I'm not relying on it being a perfect circle in any way, shape or form.
-
That doesn't really answer my question, but ok.
Also, 2D shape? You realize that true 2D shapes do not exist in three dimensional space, right?
-
That doesn't really answer my question, but ok.
How does it not?
I only need a 2D shape.
Also, 2D shape? You realize that true 2D shapes do not exist in three dimensional space, right?
Approximation. There's room for some error, sure: but not quite as much as we observe.
-
Vauxhall is correct. What reason is there to believe that the FE is circular rather than oval?
-
Vauxhall is correct. What reason is there to believe that the FE is circular rather than oval?
As I said, that doesn't matter. We're talking about the equator, but beyond that, if the interior is any shape other than that a circle, the area within will be smaller. that's what the Inequality proves.
Suppose it's an oval, a heptagon, a splodge, whatever you want. There is no 2-D shape that can hold more area than a perfect circle: and even a perfect circle doesn't give anywhere near enough.
-
There is no 2-D shape that can hold more area than a perfect circle
This is demonstrably false.
Also, like I've said, we live in a 3 dimensional universe. I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.
-
There is no 2-D shape that can hold more area than a perfect circle
This is demonstrably false.
If it's demonstrably false, would you care to demonstrate? Draw a shape: then draw a circle with the same perimeter. The circle will have more area. That's the Isoperimetric Inequality.
Also, like I've said, we live in a 3 dimensional universe. I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.
And as I said, that's rather irrelevant. We're not dealing with surface area and hills and valleys etc: we're dealing with the distances from point to point. Your only way to sneak in more area would be to introduce more concave/vexity, and if you do that you've left FET far behind.
-
Firstly, area is irrelevant. Which is why this thread is mostly pointless...
Here's a diagram:
(http://i.imgur.com/zRDV5GU.png)
You don't know the true shape of the Earth. If you're operating under the assumption that it is a circle, something similar to a circle, a perfect circle, or a 2D shape (despite the fact that we live in a 3D universe) then you're going to get incorrect results.
You can't base math on an assumption and then assume you've proved something. That's unscientific, Jane.
-
Firstly, area is irrelevant.
Would you care to say why? If the FE area is dramatically smaller than what we observe, that seems to be quite a problem.
Here's a diagram:
Please try to note the 'same perimeter' fact I have been using in every single post.
You don't know the true shape of the Earth. If you're operating under the assumption that it is a circle, something similar to a circle, a perfect circle, or a 2D shape (despite the fact that we live in a 3D universe) then you're going to get incorrect results.
I'm working on the basis that the surface is approximately flat, under your worldview. If it is not approximately flat, it is either concave, or convex. Which is it? Neither can exactly be called FET. Again, texture like mountains and hills and valleys isn't relevant: you need much larger geographical features. That is, convex behaviour, or concave behaviour.
I'm tired of repeating myself. Do you feel willing to respond to basically any point I've made?
-
Do you feel willing to respond to basically any point I've made?
I have responded to all your points. Is this how you normally conduct debate?
I am not very good at math, you know this. I hardly know what formulas you have going on in the OP, but I know one thing for sure... basing math on assumed information is going to get results that skew in your favor. You can't disprove anything without first figuring out the true shape of the Earth and taking legitimate measurements... which you haven't done.
-
I have responded to all your points. Is this how you normally conduct debate?
You have not. At best you've constructed straw men (see: your obviously different perimeter shapes). This is exactly why you're blocked on the other site. In order, now:
- Why is area irrelevant?
- Is the Earth concave or convex, and if not how do you find the radically greater area than is possible on an approximately flat surface?
basing math on assumed information is going to get results that skew in your favor. You can't disprove anything without first figuring out the true shape of the Earth and taking legitimate measurements... which you haven't done.
Once again, I'm focusing on the equator, not the Earth. if it is a 2-D or approximately 2-D shape, we do not get the area we have.
Or, if you're instead taking the decision that the measurements are wrong, how? Many maps etc predate, for example, space travel, and distances are repeatedly verified by literally anyone who has any travelling to do. Are you taking the position every measured distance is false?
-
Are you taking the position every measured distance is false?
I thought that was obvious?
-
Are you taking the position every measured distance is false?
I thought that was obvious?
If you aren't going to take the time to respond to my points, why do you post? Once more:
Or, if you're instead taking the decision that the measurements are wrong, how? Many maps etc predate, for example, space travel, and distances are repeatedly verified by literally anyone who has any travelling to do.
-
Or, if you're instead taking the decision that the measurements are wrong, how? Many maps etc predate, for example, space travel, and distances are repeatedly verified by literally anyone who has any travelling to do.
I've traveled by boat, car, plane, etc. I don't measure the distances every time I travel. Actually, I don't think most people do.
All you can really do is measure from point a to point b and the like (how much time, how many miles, etc does it take to get from California to Brazil?). That's not going to tell you the shape of the Earth no matter how hard you want it to.
I'm not going to continue responding if you're not going to add anything further. I don't want this to devolve into a Jane loop. You know our stance. Pretending that we'll accept shoddy measurements from third party sources isn't helping your point. I think I've made my stance on this particular argument clear, and I don't think anything further needs to be addressed. Good day.
-
All you can really do is measure from point a to point b and the like (how much time, how many miles, etc does it take to get from California to Brazil?). That's not going to tell you the shape of the Earth no matter how hard you want it to.
If you don't accept proven maths, that says it all. How do you think said distances were found? Most people might not measure distances, but you'd tell if, for example, the northern hemisphere was half the size you see. If you know something's speed, and how long it takes to get somewhere (eg: with planes) you can tell the distance.
I'm not going to continue responding if you're not going to add anything further.
Oh, that's rich.
I don't want this to devolve into a Vauxhall loop. You know our stance. Pretending that we'll accept shoddy measurements from third parties isn't helping your point. I think I've made my stance on this particular argument clear, and I don't think anything further needs to be addressed. Good day.
If your stance is to reject all maps, all data taken from sources completely unrelated to space agencies, and make every cartographer a liar, your stance is clear. That doesn't mean this question is not relevant as, by the wiki, that is far from a widely-held belief even among FEers.
-
Or, if you're instead taking the decision that the measurements are wrong, how? Many maps etc predate, for example, space travel, and distances are repeatedly verified by literally anyone who has any travelling to do.
Nice videos for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VpWYpAWxrM&index=4&list=PLltxIX4B8_URNUzDE2sXctnUAEXgEDDGn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FuO8lQV18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLD8g-7okww&index=10&list=PLltxIX4B8_URNUzDE2sXctnUAEXgEDDGn
-
If your stance is to reject all maps, all data taken from sources completely unrelated to space agencies, and make every cartographer a liar, your stance is clear. That doesn't mean this question is not relevant as, by the wiki, that is far from a widely-held belief even among FEers.
This is the Flat Earth Society. We deny the shape of the Earth. Denying cartography, naturally, comes with that. I'm actually shocked that you're surprised about this.
-
If your stance is to reject all maps, all data taken from sources completely unrelated to space agencies, and make every cartographer a liar, your stance is clear. That doesn't mean this question is not relevant as, by the wiki, that is far from a widely-held belief even among FEers.
This is the Flat Earth Society. We deny the shape of the Earth. Denying cartography, naturally, comes with that. I'm actually shocked that you're surprised about this.
It's distances more than just cartography: distances are verifiable. That's the issue. That has always been the issue. Go ahead denying them, but you aren't answering the how or the why.
Thork, I don't have the time to go through almost half an hour of videos. Skimming them, they don't seem to be of relevance to the matter of distance, and the plane flights have been answered multiple times from what I've seen (desirability, wind currents etc) and they were focused on the wrong hemisphere for the argument I'm making.
There are multiple groups who have calculated the length of the equator: if these groups are dishonest, surely it would make more sense for them to give a measurement for the equator which was vaguely accurate, instead of over 35% out? The key to any lie should be to make it believable. Error bars quite that big are not believable.
Unless the length of the equator is accurate, in which case the subsequent, best possible case for area makes an even more damning case.
-
If "distances are verifiable," please tell us how ships and airplanes measure distance. If you are the captain of a vessel, sailing on an endless ocean, what is the tool your ship would use analogous to an odometer? Is there some kind of device that goes into the water and spins with the current as the ship sails forward?
No, there is no such device. A ship gets its position by figuring out his longitude and latitude in some way and looking at a map which shows the coordinates of the destination location. If his Latitude is 71 and he needs to be at 72.5, he keeps sailing until he gets there. In the past the latitude and longitude could be figured out by looking at the stars. Modernly, it is gathered by looking at GPS coordinates (which is still just based on the star position-based latitude/longitude of old). The captain is merely looking at his coordinates and pointing his ship on a path to get to the coordinates he needs to be at. There is no direct measurement of the earth whatsoever.
-
There is no direct measurement of the earth whatsoever.
I refer you to the fairly well-known equation of speed equals distance over time. The time is known, speed can be calculated from the capabilities of the ship and from reference to any stationary observer (such as another ship, or land, etc). If the distance calculated from a RE model doesn't even come close to that (as would be required) you can bet it would stick out.
-
There are only a few different types of boat speedometers. One has a little prop which spins in the water flow and electronics convert spin speed to boat speed. Another type uses doppler echo into the water and computes boat speed from result. But they are all pretty inaccurate. Speed through the water is meaningless due to slip, set, and drift.
There is currently no reliable method of gauging one's speed at sea or in the air.
-
Jane, I think you'd get better results if you did the measurements yourself instead of relying on faulty round Earth data. You probably won't be happy with the results though.
-
There are only a few different types of boat speedometers. One has a little prop which spins in the water flow and electronics convert spin speed to boat speed. Another type uses doppler echo into the water and computes boat speed from result. But they are all pretty inaccurate. Speed through the water is meaningless due to slip, set, and drift.
here is currently no reliable method of gauging one's speed at sea or in the air.
speed can be calculated from the capabilities of the ship and from reference to any stationary observer (such as another ship, or land, etc).
-
Jane, I think you'd get better results if you did the measurements yourself instead of relying on faulty round Earth data. You probably won't be happy with the results though.
Sure thing, just give me a reason to distrust the multitude of cartographers and pilots and boat crews and surveyors etc who routinely rely on the fact there is very little discrepancy between these numbers and reality, and give me a reason to think that if the conspiracy's that large I won't be shot in the head the instant I start.
-
Jane, I think you'd get better results if you did the measurements yourself instead of relying on faulty round Earth data. You probably won't be happy with the results though.
Sure thing, just give me a reason to distrust the multitude of cartographers and pilots and boat crews and surveyors etc who routinely rely on the fact there is very little discrepancy between these numbers and reality, and give me a reason to think that if the conspiracy's that large I won't be shot in the head the instant I start.
Are you refusing to do the measurements?
-
Jane, I think you'd get better results if you did the measurements yourself instead of relying on faulty round Earth data. You probably won't be happy with the results though.
Sure thing, just give me a reason to distrust the multitude of cartographers and pilots and boat crews and surveyors etc who routinely rely on the fact there is very little discrepancy between these numbers and reality, and give me a reason to think that if the conspiracy's that large I won't be shot in the head the instant I start.
Are you refusing to do the measurements?
Please read the post. I'm waiting for two pieces of reasoning from you.
At the very least you have to give me a reason why taking detailed measurements, rather than making deductions based on observation, is necessary. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to be assured of my own safety as well.
Are you refusing to supply the reasons?
-
You're the one making the claims here. It's up to you to verify these claims by doing the measurements yourself and proving that the numbers you are using are correct. If you can't do that... then I'm not sure how we're going to progress.
-
There are only a few different types of boat speedometers. One has a little prop which spins in the water flow and electronics convert spin speed to boat speed. Another type uses doppler echo into the water and computes boat speed from result. But they are all pretty inaccurate. Speed through the water is meaningless due to slip, set, and drift.
here is currently no reliable method of gauging one's speed at sea or in the air.
speed can be calculated from the capabilities of the ship and from reference to any stationary observer (such as another ship, or land, etc).
"Capabilities of the ship"? What does that mean? What makes you think that a ship would be running at the max all the way across an ocean? That's a good way to blow out your engine and get stranded. If there were no speed limits, would you drive your car at its max speed at all times?
Secondly, there is no one making observational measurements in comparison to stationary bodies for a ship that goes across an ocean.
-
You're the one making the claims here. It's up to you to verify these claims by doing the measurements yourself and proving that the numbers you are using are correct. If you can't do that... then I'm not sure how we're going to progress.
I've provided evidence in the form of corroboration, and how departures from those numbers would be noticed on the scale to which you require. This is yet another time you have made me repeat myself.
If you're not going to respond to a word I say, I'm not sure how we're going to progress.
-
"Capabilities of the ship"? What does that mean? What makes you think that a ship would be running at the max all the way across an ocean? That's a good way to blow out your engine and get stranded. If there were no speed limits, would you drive your car at its max speed at all times?
Approximation. It's probably the most basic mathematical principle for any real world modelling. Or can we add ship designers to the ever-expanding list of people who spent years to become utterly incompetent, or who are lying with every breath?
Secondly, there is no one making observational measurements in comparison to stationary bodies for a ship that goes across an ocean.
All the time, no. I'm not saying it happens all the time.
-
You're the one making the claims here. It's up to you to verify these claims by doing the measurements yourself and proving that the numbers you are using are correct. If you can't do that... then I'm not sure how we're going to progress.
I've provided evidence in the form of corroboration, and how departures from those numbers would be noticed on the scale to which you require. This is yet another time you have made me repeat myself.
If you're not going to respond to a word I say, I'm not sure how we're going to progress.
As Tom clearly pointed out, you can't even describe accurately how these "corroborated" measurements were taken. You've demonstrated that you do not know how these measurements were taken and are basing their accuracy on blind faith alone. That is unscientific. If you cannot explain how the measurements were taken, how can we trust you to know that they are accurate? I would like for you to take the measurements yourself and describe the methods you used to get these measurements. If you cannot do that I'm not sure how we are going to progress. The burden of proof is on you.
-
As Tom clearly pointed out, you can't even describe accurately how these "corroborated" measurements were taken. You've demonstrated that you do not know how these measurements were taken and are basing their accuracy on blind faith alone. That is unscientific. If you cannot explain how the measurements were taken, how can we trust you to know that they are accurate? I would like for you to take the measurements yourself and describe the methods you used to get these measurements. If you cannot do that I'm not sure how we are going to progress. The burden of proof lies on you, since you're the one making the claims.
Flight times. Travel times. Land travel times do the job just fine for most of it. Assuming that hundreds if not thousands of people are either lying, or utterly incompetent despite years of training, is the claim you're making. You have the burden of proof for that, do you have any non-circular means of justifying it?
I've asked for two things before I take the measurements. Can I expect you to get back to me any time soon on that?
-
Assuming that hundreds if not thousands of people are either lying, or utterly incompetent despite years of training, is the claim you're making. You have the burden of proof for that, do you have any non-circular means of justifying it?
I never made that claim. I don't think anyone in this thread has made that claim.
Why are you refusing to do the measurements? You don't think there's a conspiracy so your "concerns" about the measurements are just a sly jab at us. Why do you expect me to respond to passive aggressive behavior?
-
Assuming that hundreds if not thousands of people are either lying, or utterly incompetent despite years of training, is the claim you're making. You have the burden of proof for that, do you have any non-circular means of justifying it?
I never made that claim. I don't think anyone in this thread has made that claim.
Why are you refusing to do the measurements? You don't think there's a conspiracy so your "concerns" about the measurements are just a sly jab at us. Why do you expect me to respond to passive aggressive behavior?
It's a consequence of what you're saying. Apologies for thinking mathematically.
If what you say is true, then what I've said is true. By contraposition, if the 'then' is not true, the 'if' cannot be true. That's the basis.
If you have an alternative explanation, I'm waiting for it.
-
This is yet another time you have made me repeat myself.
You're making the tragic mistake of assuming that repeating your answer will make it any less incomplete.
-
You're making the tragic mistake of assuming that repeating your answer will make it any less incomplete.
If my answer's incomplete, it should be possible to pose a question for which repetition is not a valid response. If he's stuck asking the same question, with basically no alteration, that does seem to imply my answer's enough.
-
If my answer's incomplete, it should be possible to pose a question for which repetition is not a valid response. If he's stuck asking the same question, with basically no alteration, that does seem to imply my answer's enough.
No, it implies the very opposite. If your "answer" does nothing to actually answer the question, people will keep asking you the same question until they actually get an answer. Well, either that or they'll give up, whichever comes first.
-
No, it implies the very opposite. If your "answer" does nothing to actually answer the question, people will keep asking you the same question until they actually get an answer. Well, either that or they'll give up, whichever comes first.
In which case it should be possible to say why my answer isn't satisfactory rather than just repeating yourself.
-
In which case it should be possible to say why my answer isn't satisfactory rather than just repeating yourself.
You're the only one who's repeating yourself over and over again (even in this very stream of discussion! Your two posts addressed at me say the exact same thing while completely disregarding anything I said). Vauxxy has gone through quite some effort to explain the lacks in your answer to you, and you, as you so aptly pointed out, felt the need to repeat yourself instead of actually progressing. Similarly, I explained to you why the exact opposite of what you thought is actually the case, but you made no use of that information and instead restated your assertion, throwing in an "In that case". Do you not see how useless this is?
If I can offer some advice: If you think that repeating yourself will help, you're probably wrong. Most people here have reasonably good reading comprehension, and they probably heard you the first time. If you feel that your response doesn't add anything to the thread (by virtue of being a simple restatement, as you yourself noticed), don't post it. It helps nobody.
-
You're the only one who's repeating yourself over and over again (even in this very stream of discussion! Your two posts addressed at me say the exact same thing while completely disregarding anything I said).
They say similar things, yes. (The rather crucial difference being that the first was about posing a new question, and the second being about crafting a rebuttal). Consider that's because you added nothing with your second post also.
Vauxxy has gone through quite some effort to explain the lacks in your answer to you, and you, as you so aptly pointed out, felt the need to repeat yourself instead of actually progressing. Similarly, I explained to you why the exact opposite of what you thought is actually the case, but you made no use of that information and instead restated your assertion, throwing in an "In that case". Do you not see how useless this is?
It should be possible to construct a reply for which repetition is not a valid response: and to point out the flaws in said response if repetition is done. That simply hasn't happened. if you follow the discussion, it took quite a while for Vauxy to actually make his central point (that all distances are unreliable), and when asked for how and why that is the case, he changed the topic to what could only be the assertion that they're not reliable, and that I should measure the distances myself. I asked for two things before I did that (a reason to think it was necessary, and to think it was safe), I've yet to read a reply to that.
The alternative is that at least one of us is being unclear: after all, I know what I intend to say, you know what you intend to say, so any losses of clarity are going to be harder to notice given that we know how to fill in the gaps in our own statements. That's why pointing out flaws in statements is crucial, rather than just repeating a question you feel hasn't been answered. if the answer's unsatisfactory, you have to say why, not just handwave and say it is.
After all, I could respond to anything with a complete non-sequitur, or copy an already-refuted rebuttal, and you'd be entirely within your rights to just repeat yourself because the question went thoroughly unanswered. From my perspective (and experience on the other site), Vauxy's done just that.
If I can offer some advice: If you think that repeating yourself will help, you're probably wrong. Most people here have reasonably good reading comprehension, and they probably heard you the first time. If you feel that your response doesn't add anything to the thread (by virtue of being a simple restatement, as you yourself noticed), don't post it. It helps nobody.
I'd agree in theory, less so in practice. If Vauxhall's serious about disagreement (which I have my doubts about, from my experiences with him on the other side), it may just be that I was unclear, or phrased something badly: in which case restatement to emphasize certain details, or re-express to answer a point explicitly, can be of use.
-
If "distances are verifiable," please tell us how ships and airplanes measure distance. If you are the captain of a vessel, sailing on an endless ocean, what is the tool your ship would use analogous to an odometer? Is there some kind of device that goes into the water and spins with the current as the ship sails forward?
No, there is no such device.
Actually there is. It's called a rope (along with a timer and a log book).
“With no landmarks to gauge their progress across the open sea, sailors couldn’t tell how fast or how far they were traveling,” explains Camila Caballero, an MIT senior and the academic coordinator for Amphibious Achievement, an athletic and academic outreach program for urban youth in Boston. But when the nautical mile – 1.852 kilometers – was introduced in the 15th century, they had a handy standard against which to measure speed and created out of necessity the chip log, the world’s first maritime speedometer. “They used materials they had on hand,” she explains. “A wedge-shaped piece of wood, a small glass timer, and a really long rope.”
But not just any rope would do. Based on the length of the nautical mile, knots were tied along the log line at intervals of 14.4 meters. One end was secured to the ship’s stern and the other was attached to the wooden board, which was dropped into the water. “As one sailor watched the sand empty through the 30-second glass, his shipmate held the line as it played out behind the ship and counted the knots as they passed between his fingers,” says Caballero. Dividing that 14.4 meters by 30 seconds told them that one knot equaled 1.85166 kilometers per hour, or one nautical mile. By performing the calculation using the actual number of knots that unspooled, the sailors were able to measure the ship’s speed.
When you multiply speed by time, you get distance.
-
Jane, I just don't understand how you can get accurate math when you haven't done the measurements and you don't know the true shape of the Earth. You assume it's round, sure, and you take that assumption and apply it to a flat Earth model that's not a perfect circle (and quite possibly not a circle at all) thinking that it proves something... when in reality is doesn't.
If we had a map of the flat Earth with distances and measurements listed, and you based your math on that... then I would be more willingly to discuss this with you. Seeing as something like that doesn't exist at this time, I don't feel like this is a debate worth having.
-
Jane, I just don't understand how you can get accurate math when you haven't done the measurements
Would you care to respond to my two requests? Personal observation is not the only way to learn something. Until you can show the many times people rely on such distances (eg: any long-distance travel) is somehow unreliable, there is no need to repeat measurements that have already been done.
and you don't know the true shape of the Earth. You assume it's round, sure, and you take that assumption and apply it to a flat Earth model that's not a perfect circle (and quite possibly not a circle at all) thinking that it proves something... when in reality is doesn't.
Yet again, a point you have repeatedly ignored. A perfect circle is the best case scenario, if it is approximately flat. This is a basic mathematical fact. I do not care what shape it actually is, for the purposes of this thread, if it is not concave or convex then it is approximately a 2-D shape. If it is approximately a 2-D shape, the largest possible area that could be contained within the equator (of set length), is if the equator was a perfect circle. If it is not a perfect circle, as I have allowed for (and have explicitly said I have allowed for several times), the possible area within gets further from what we observe.
If your repeated mentions of 'the true shape' are of any relevance, then that is only possible if you accept the Earth is concave or convex. Do you, yes or no? Otherwise, please stop bringing that point up unless you can add anything new.
Until you take the time to actually respond to basically anything I have said, I'm not wasting any more time with you.
-
If "distances are verifiable," please tell us how ships and airplanes measure distance. If you are the captain of a vessel, sailing on an endless ocean, what is the tool your ship would use analogous to an odometer? Is there some kind of device that goes into the water and spins with the current as the ship sails forward?
No, there is no such device.
Actually there is. It's called a rope (along with a timer and a log book).
“With no landmarks to gauge their progress across the open sea, sailors couldn’t tell how fast or how far they were traveling,” explains Camila Caballero, an MIT senior and the academic coordinator for Amphibious Achievement, an athletic and academic outreach program for urban youth in Boston. But when the nautical mile – 1.852 kilometers – was introduced in the 15th century, they had a handy standard against which to measure speed and created out of necessity the chip log, the world’s first maritime speedometer. “They used materials they had on hand,” she explains. “A wedge-shaped piece of wood, a small glass timer, and a really long rope.”
But not just any rope would do. Based on the length of the nautical mile, knots were tied along the log line at intervals of 14.4 meters. One end was secured to the ship’s stern and the other was attached to the wooden board, which was dropped into the water. “As one sailor watched the sand empty through the 30-second glass, his shipmate held the line as it played out behind the ship and counted the knots as they passed between his fingers,” says Caballero. Dividing that 14.4 meters by 30 seconds told them that one knot equaled 1.85166 kilometers per hour, or one nautical mile. By performing the calculation using the actual number of knots that unspooled, the sailors were able to measure the ship’s speed.
When you multiply speed by time, you get distance.
Who has done that across a ocean?
-
If "distances are verifiable," please tell us how ships and airplanes measure distance. If you are the captain of a vessel, sailing on an endless ocean, what is the tool your ship would use analogous to an odometer? Is there some kind of device that goes into the water and spins with the current as the ship sails forward?
No, there is no such device.
Actually there is. It's called a rope (along with a timer and a log book).
“With no landmarks to gauge their progress across the open sea, sailors couldn’t tell how fast or how far they were traveling,” explains Camila Caballero, an MIT senior and the academic coordinator for Amphibious Achievement, an athletic and academic outreach program for urban youth in Boston. But when the nautical mile – 1.852 kilometers – was introduced in the 15th century, they had a handy standard against which to measure speed and created out of necessity the chip log, the world’s first maritime speedometer. “They used materials they had on hand,” she explains. “A wedge-shaped piece of wood, a small glass timer, and a really long rope.”
But not just any rope would do. Based on the length of the nautical mile, knots were tied along the log line at intervals of 14.4 meters. One end was secured to the ship’s stern and the other was attached to the wooden board, which was dropped into the water. “As one sailor watched the sand empty through the 30-second glass, his shipmate held the line as it played out behind the ship and counted the knots as they passed between his fingers,” says Caballero. Dividing that 14.4 meters by 30 seconds told them that one knot equaled 1.85166 kilometers per hour, or one nautical mile. By performing the calculation using the actual number of knots that unspooled, the sailors were able to measure the ship’s speed.
When you multiply speed by time, you get distance.
Who has done that across a ocean?
Seriously Tom? How do you think that sailors navigated across the oceans hundreds of years ago? When it's too cloudy to take celestial readings, then you need to rely on dead reckoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_reckoning) until you can take another reading.
Then again, a more modern instrument for measuring a ship's speed is a pitot tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube). Honestly Tom, you should know better than to ask such silly questions.
-
You didn't answer my question. Who used that rope method to measure the speed of a ship across an ocean?
And I looked at your link. How does a tube that measures the speed of the air outside your plane tell you how fast your plane is traveling?
-
You didn't answer my question. Who used that rope method to measure the speed of a ship across an ocean?
It was the standard way to measure speed from the 15th century until the mid-19th century; so, everyone for about 400 years.
-
You didn't answer my question. Who used that rope method to measure the speed of a ship across an ocean?
Like Rama said, pretty much everyone who sailed the oceans.
And I looked at your link. How does a tube that measures the speed of the air outside your plane tell you how fast your plane is traveling?
??? How does a tube that measures the speed of a fluid tell you how fast you're traveling in that fluid? Is that the question that you're asking? Seriously?
-
You didn't answer my question. Who used that rope method to measure the speed of a ship across an ocean?[/url]
Someone did it constantly all the way across an ocean? ???
??? How does a tube that measures the speed of a fluid tell you how fast you're traveling in that fluid? Is that the question that you're asking? Seriously?
Considering that air is in motion, and a plane is in motion, sticking a tube out of your airplane to measure the speed of the air seems pretty unreliable in telling you how fast you are moving. How does the device tell what is the wind and what is the plane?
-
You didn't answer my question. Who used that rope method to measure the speed of a ship across an ocean?[/url]
Someone did it constantly all the way across an ocean? ???
Did someone measure the 3000 mile distance from the equator to 45 degrees latitude so that you could calculate the distance to the sun?
??? How does a tube that measures the speed of a fluid tell you how fast you're traveling in that fluid? Is that the question that you're asking? Seriously?
Considering that air is in motion, and a plane is in motion, sticking a tube out of your airplane to measure the speed of the air seems pretty unreliable in telling you how fast you are moving. How does the device tell what is the wind and what is the plane?
First of all, if you don't think that air speed is important for a pilot to know, then you don't know much about how airplanes work. Although airspeed will probably vary from true ground speed, larger aircraft can measure their true ground speed via RADAR.
Secondly, you do understand that pitot tubes measure the speed of fluids, which can include water, don't you? Many fish finders use pitot tubes to measure a boat's speed.
-
"And I looked at your link. How does a tube that measures the speed of the air outside your plane tell you how fast your plane is traveling?"
If your asking how does a pitot tube work, here is the theory behind it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube
As for measuring a distance it's not good because the fluid or air can be moving. So, if you're traveling at 100 kph, and the wind is traveling at 30 kph towards your nose, the pitot tube will read 100kph but over the ground you'll be traveling at 70 kph.
True airspeed has nothing to do with speed over the ground though. It has to do with temperature and altitude.
If you guys are arguing about measuring the Earth you can do it yourself.
http://stardate.org/astro-guide/faqs/how-was-size-earth-first-measured
-
Think about it. The stick-shadow experiment will only tell you about the circumference of a round earth if it is assumed the earth is a sphere. If it is assumed that the earth is flat the shadow experiment tells you about the area of land the light of the sun affects on a flat earth. We use that shadow experiment to get our diameter.
-
Well, let's do the math for a flat earth and a spherical earth and see which angles we get? Wouldn't that say something towards determining which is correct?
If the sun is 150,000 or 150,000,000 km away we should be able to tell by the angles of shadows. No?
-
Well, let's do the math for a flat earth and a spherical earth and see which angles we get? Wouldn't that say something towards determining which is correct?
If the sun is 150,000 or 150,000,000 km away we should be able to tell by the angles of shadows. No?
Under a flat earth model the Eratosthenes shadow experiment predicts a sun that is much closer to the earth.
See our article in our wiki on this subject: http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
-
We should test that. I think it would be a fun collaborative venture if we had a few flat earth believers and spherical earth people preform the same experiment and posted our data here(maybe in a new thread or something).
I'm sure we could all agree on a test platform of some kind. Something cheap and easy to build.
Besides the fun of preforming a amateur global experiment it might be a way to move away from the FET vs RET vibe this board has. And like I said.... It'd be kinda fun.
-
But we don't deny what angles the shadows will measure to, we dispute what they mean.
-
From what I can tell no one here has done this experiment. For all we know the whole this is a conspiracy.
It would be fun to try it.