Thork

Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2015, 10:31:35 PM »
If you solve for h in my formula and allow d to be 100, as round-earthers claim, you arrive at the same 6660 foot height required that Thork found in his online calculator. So I guess I'm wrong, the formula is wrong, the internet is wrong, trigonometry is wrong, and only Gulliver is right; all alone laughing at us lunatics.
Again, you are wrong. The formula does not calculate how far you can see. It's quite obvious.

For the confused... Consider two towers each 1000 feet high on the near shore of a still ocean separated by 50 miles. Does the astronomical horizon formula that Pongo and Thork used consider that the height of both towers which makes it possible to see the top of the other from each? No. both Pongo and Thork fail, again.
Are you saying there are two CN Towers? ::)

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2015, 10:36:18 PM »
If you solve for h in my formula and allow d to be 100, as round-earthers claim, you arrive at the same 6660 foot height required that Thork found in his online calculator. So I guess I'm wrong, the formula is wrong, the internet is wrong, trigonometry is wrong, and only Gulliver is right; all alone laughing at us lunatics.
Again, you are wrong. The formula does not calculate how far you can see. It's quite obvious.

For the confused... Consider two towers each 1000 feet high on the near shore of a still ocean separated by 50 miles. Does the astronomical horizon formula that Pongo and Thork used consider that the height of both towers which makes it possible to see the top of the other from each? No. both Pongo and Thork fail, again.
Are you saying there are two CN Towers? ::)
No. Please read. I used the word "consider".
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Thork

Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2015, 10:43:38 PM »
If you solve for h in my formula and allow d to be 100, as round-earthers claim, you arrive at the same 6660 foot height required that Thork found in his online calculator. So I guess I'm wrong, the formula is wrong, the internet is wrong, trigonometry is wrong, and only Gulliver is right; all alone laughing at us lunatics.
Again, you are wrong. The formula does not calculate how far you can see. It's quite obvious.

For the confused... Consider two towers each 1000 feet high on the near shore of a still ocean separated by 50 miles. Does the astronomical horizon formula that Pongo and Thork used consider that the height of both towers which makes it possible to see the top of the other from each? No. both Pongo and Thork fail, again.
Are you saying there are two CN Towers? ::)
No. Please read. I used the word "consider".
Why would I consider it? If you are on the CN Tower, you cannot see for 100 miles on a round earth because there isn't another hypothetical tower over 4000ft high within 100 miles to look at.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #43 on: March 02, 2015, 01:01:29 AM »
... there isn't another hypothetical tower over 4000ft high within 100 miles to look at.
To the contrary, by definition, there are hypothetical towers of every height everywhere.

Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothetical
: involving or based on a suggested idea or theory : involving or based on a hypothesis

: not real : imagined as an example
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 913
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #44 on: March 02, 2015, 05:24:35 AM »
...
1) This entire argument is irrelevant
2) Nope. It's more like 92,956,000 miles away. Lrn2pedantic
3) No. It doesn't. Pongo's formula only applies to things on the Earth's surface. Obviously. It's about the curvature of the Earth hiding things, not some fundamental law of RET.
1) You're right. Your argument that FET distances matter in Pongo's proof about RET is indeed irrelevant. Thanks for agreeing.
2) Are you incorrectly claiming that no visible part of the sun is ever 93,000,000 miles from earth? Please do try harder.
3) So since the observation deck is not on the earth's surface, you obvious agree that he's used the wrong formula, right? Why would Pongo have 'h' be a height above the earth's surface, if you were right? Please do try harder.

The CN Tower levitates above the Earth? I had no idea. Damn, I need to visit Seattle some time. That must be a sight to behold.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #45 on: March 02, 2015, 06:22:45 AM »
...
1) This entire argument is irrelevant
2) Nope. It's more like 92,956,000 miles away. Lrn2pedantic
3) No. It doesn't. Pongo's formula only applies to things on the Earth's surface. Obviously. It's about the curvature of the Earth hiding things, not some fundamental law of RET.
1) You're right. Your argument that FET distances matter in Pongo's proof about RET is indeed irrelevant. Thanks for agreeing.
2) Are you incorrectly claiming that no visible part of the sun is ever 93,000,000 miles from earth? Please do try harder.
3) So since the observation deck is not on the earth's surface, you obvious agree that he's used the wrong formula, right? Why would Pongo have 'h' be a height above the earth's surface, if you were right? Please do try harder.

The CN Tower levitates above the Earth? I had no idea. Damn, I need to visit Seattle some time. That must be a sight to behold.
You seen to be really confused. No, the CN Tower does not levitate above the earth. Why would you visit Seattle to see a Toronto landmark?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Thork

Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #46 on: March 02, 2015, 11:36:35 AM »
Despite your appeal to create a scenario that doesn't exist, it isn't going to prove anything. This is what the Zetetic method is all about. If there are any huge Towers within 100 miles of the CN Tower, we'd be delighted to discuss them with you. Being as there aren't, it cannot be possible to see 100 miles on a round earth from the CN Tower, so Pongo's assertion they are making flat earth claims stands.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 2623
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #47 on: March 02, 2015, 01:31:30 PM »
Despite your appeal to create a scenario that doesn't exist, it isn't going to prove anything. This is what the Zetetic method is all about. If there are any huge Towers within 100 miles of the CN Tower, we'd be delighted to discuss them with you. Being as there aren't, it cannot be possible to see 100 miles on a round earth from the CN Tower, so Pongo's assertion they are making flat earth claims stands.
The Skylon Tower in Niagara Falls, Ontario is 520 feet tall and boasts quite the view as well.  This is not to mention that the city of Niagara Falls is on an escarpment, so the observation deck of the Skylon Tower is about 775 feet above the bottom of the falls.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 913
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #48 on: March 02, 2015, 03:08:08 PM »
...
1) This entire argument is irrelevant
2) Nope. It's more like 92,956,000 miles away. Lrn2pedantic
3) No. It doesn't. Pongo's formula only applies to things on the Earth's surface. Obviously. It's about the curvature of the Earth hiding things, not some fundamental law of RET.
1) You're right. Your argument that FET distances matter in Pongo's proof about RET is indeed irrelevant. Thanks for agreeing.
2) Are you incorrectly claiming that no visible part of the sun is ever 93,000,000 miles from earth? Please do try harder.
3) So since the observation deck is not on the earth's surface, you obvious agree that he's used the wrong formula, right? Why would Pongo have 'h' be a height above the earth's surface, if you were right? Please do try harder.

The CN Tower levitates above the Earth? I had no idea. Damn, I need to visit Seattle some time. That must be a sight to behold.
You seen to be really confused. No, the CN Tower does not levitate above the earth. Why would you visit Seattle to see a Toronto landmark?

Well, if it's in space I figured that it would be easiest to see from the space needle. I assume they don't offer space flights up there to the public.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #49 on: March 02, 2015, 04:15:07 PM »
...
1) This entire argument is irrelevant
2) Nope. It's more like 92,956,000 miles away. Lrn2pedantic
3) No. It doesn't. Pongo's formula only applies to things on the Earth's surface. Obviously. It's about the curvature of the Earth hiding things, not some fundamental law of RET.
1) You're right. Your argument that FET distances matter in Pongo's proof about RET is indeed irrelevant. Thanks for agreeing.
2) Are you incorrectly claiming that no visible part of the sun is ever 93,000,000 miles from earth? Please do try harder.
3) So since the observation deck is not on the earth's surface, you obvious agree that he's used the wrong formula, right? Why would Pongo have 'h' be a height above the earth's surface, if you were right? Please do try harder.

The CN Tower levitates above the Earth? I had no idea. Damn, I need to visit Seattle some time. That must be a sight to behold.
You seen to be really confused. No, the CN Tower does not levitate above the earth. Why would you visit Seattle to see a Toronto landmark?

Well, if it's in space I figured that it would be easiest to see from the space needle. I assume they don't offer space flights up there to the public.
You remain confused. Why do you infer that it's in space? How did you figure that it would be easiest to see from the Space Needle? You really do need to try harder.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Thork

Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #50 on: March 02, 2015, 04:24:30 PM »
Despite your appeal to create a scenario that doesn't exist, it isn't going to prove anything. This is what the Zetetic method is all about. If there are any huge Towers within 100 miles of the CN Tower, we'd be delighted to discuss them with you. Being as there aren't, it cannot be possible to see 100 miles on a round earth from the CN Tower, so Pongo's assertion they are making flat earth claims stands.
The Skylon Tower in Niagara Falls, Ontario is 520 feet tall and boasts quite the view as well.  This is not to mention that the city of Niagara Falls is on an escarpment, so the observation deck of the Skylon Tower is about 775 feet above the bottom of the falls.
::)

And can you see the Skylon Tower from the CN Tower? Or are you just trying to make this thread go 20 pages to bury the facts as usual?

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #51 on: March 02, 2015, 04:56:26 PM »
Despite your appeal to create a scenario that doesn't exist, it isn't going to prove anything. This is what the Zetetic method is all about. If there are any huge Towers within 100 miles of the CN Tower, we'd be delighted to discuss them with you. Being as there aren't, it cannot be possible to see 100 miles on a round earth from the CN Tower, so Pongo's assertion they are making flat earth claims stands.
The Skylon Tower in Niagara Falls, Ontario is 520 feet tall and boasts quite the view as well.  This is not to mention that the city of Niagara Falls is on an escarpment, so the observation deck of the Skylon Tower is about 775 feet above the bottom of the falls.
::)

And can you see the Skylon Tower from the CN Tower? Or are you just trying to make this thread go 20 pages to bury the facts as usual?
Why don't you try Google before asking inane questions? See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CN_Tower_as_seen_from_skylon_tower,_Niagara_Falls.jpg

Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Thork

Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #52 on: March 02, 2015, 05:11:01 PM »
Despite your appeal to create a scenario that doesn't exist, it isn't going to prove anything. This is what the Zetetic method is all about. If there are any huge Towers within 100 miles of the CN Tower, we'd be delighted to discuss them with you. Being as there aren't, it cannot be possible to see 100 miles on a round earth from the CN Tower, so Pongo's assertion they are making flat earth claims stands.
The Skylon Tower in Niagara Falls, Ontario is 520 feet tall and boasts quite the view as well.  This is not to mention that the city of Niagara Falls is on an escarpment, so the observation deck of the Skylon Tower is about 775 feet above the bottom of the falls.
::)

And can you see the Skylon Tower from the CN Tower? Or are you just trying to make this thread go 20 pages to bury the facts as usual?
Why don't you try Google before asking inane questions? See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CN_Tower_as_seen_from_skylon_tower,_Niagara_Falls.jpg


And how far are the two apart? The answer is 30 miles. It proves nothing. Another huge red herring from Markjo as I pointed out at the beginning. We need a huge tower 100 miles away that can be seen. They claim you can see 100 miles. What can you see 100 miles away? ::)

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #53 on: March 02, 2015, 05:33:22 PM »
And how far are the two apart? The answer is 30 miles. It proves nothing. Another huge red herring from Markjo as I pointed out at the beginning. We need a huge tower 100 miles away that can be seen. They claim you can see 100 miles. What can you see 100 miles away? ::)
No, it's over 40 miles. Why did you ask the question if you thought that answer wold be a "huge red herring"?



Oh, and you can see the sun 93 million miles away.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Thork

Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #54 on: March 02, 2015, 05:36:49 PM »
Not 100 miles, is it.

Also the sun isn't 93 million miles away, it is 800 miles up as documented in our FAQ. And that is another red herring as you are trying to see things on the ground to prove earth round, not in space. You aren't able to construct, follow or reason an argument. That's two threads now where I've lost the patience to keep spelling out the same point in several ways. I'm sorry but I don't think I will be responding to your queries any more. It adds nothing to the site.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #55 on: March 02, 2015, 05:46:09 PM »
Not 100 miles, is it.

Also the sun isn't 93 million miles away, it is 800 miles up as documented in our FAQ. And that is another red herring as you are trying to see things on the ground to prove earth round, not in space. You aren't able to construct, follow or reason an argument. That's two threads now where I've lost the patience to keep spelling out the same point in several ways. I'm sorry but I don't think I will be responding to your queries any more. It adds nothing to the site.
93 million miles is more than 100 miles. Remember Pongo OP deals with RET, not FET, so switching horses in mid-stream underscores your failure. Why would you consider the tops of buildings in New York as "on the ground"? Moving the goalposts underscores your failure even more.

Oh, and the FAQ does not document that the sun is 800 miles up. Please do try harder. (It only puts forth an outlandish claim.)

Do feel free to run away each and every time you fail. You just draw even more attention to your failure, and I like that.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 913
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #56 on: March 02, 2015, 10:28:04 PM »
Not 100 miles, is it.

Also the sun isn't 93 million miles away, it is 800 miles up as documented in our FAQ. And that is another red herring as you are trying to see things on the ground to prove earth round, not in space. You aren't able to construct, follow or reason an argument. That's two threads now where I've lost the patience to keep spelling out the same point in several ways. I'm sorry but I don't think I will be responding to your queries any more. It adds nothing to the site.
93 million miles is more than 100 miles. Remember Pongo OP deals with RET, not FET, so switching horses in mid-stream underscores your failure. Why would you consider the tops of buildings in New York as "on the ground"? Moving the goalposts underscores your failure even more.

Oh, and the FAQ does not document that the sun is 800 miles up. Please do try harder. (It only puts forth an outlandish claim.)

Do feel free to run away each and every time you fail. You just draw even more attention to your failure, and I like that.

It doesn't matter that it's (several hundred thousand miles less than) 93 million miles in RET, because it's in space. Pongo's math shows how far away something can be without being hidden by the supposed curvature of the Earth. The sun would not be hidden by the curvature of the Earth because it is in the sky. Unless you are in a cave, the sky is not generally hidden by the Earth.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #57 on: March 02, 2015, 10:51:03 PM »
It doesn't matter that it's (several hundred thousand miles less than) 93 million miles in RET, because it's in space. Pongo's math shows how far away something can be without being hidden by the supposed curvature of the Earth. The sun would not be hidden by the curvature of the Earth because it is in the sky. Unless you are in a cave, the sky is not generally hidden by the Earth.
Why would you expect the tops of buildings, to be hidden according to Pongo's incorrect use of the formula to determine the distance to the astronomical horizon? It's like saying you can't see Earl Hindman behind a fence, even if he's taller than the fence. You must consider the target's height to determine whether you can see it. Pongo does not. He fails.

The sun, and the tops of buildings, are high enough to be seen. Why doesn't Pongo's formula predict both appearances? Because it's the wrong formula. He fails. Deal with it.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 913
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2015, 03:39:28 AM »
It doesn't matter that it's (several hundred thousand miles less than) 93 million miles in RET, because it's in space. Pongo's math shows how far away something can be without being hidden by the supposed curvature of the Earth. The sun would not be hidden by the curvature of the Earth because it is in the sky. Unless you are in a cave, the sky is not generally hidden by the Earth.
Why would you expect the tops of buildings, to be hidden according to Pongo's incorrect use of the formula to determine the distance to the astronomical horizon? It's like saying you can't see Earl Hindman behind a fence, even if he's taller than the fence. You must consider the target's height to determine whether you can see it. Pongo does not. He fails.

The sun, and the tops of buildings, are high enough to be seen. Why doesn't Pongo's formula predict both appearances? Because it's the wrong formula. He fails. Deal with it.

It doesn't account for whether or not the object is glowing, either. Both of these things are irrelevant.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #59 on: March 03, 2015, 04:16:44 AM »
It doesn't matter that it's (several hundred thousand miles less than) 93 million miles in RET, because it's in space. Pongo's math shows how far away something can be without being hidden by the supposed curvature of the Earth. The sun would not be hidden by the curvature of the Earth because it is in the sky. Unless you are in a cave, the sky is not generally hidden by the Earth.
Why would you expect the tops of buildings, to be hidden according to Pongo's incorrect use of the formula to determine the distance to the astronomical horizon? It's like saying you can't see Earl Hindman behind a fence, even if he's taller than the fence. You must consider the target's height to determine whether you can see it. Pongo does not. He fails.

The sun, and the tops of buildings, are high enough to be seen. Why doesn't Pongo's formula predict both appearances? Because it's the wrong formula. He fails. Deal with it.

It doesn't account for whether or not the object is glowing, either. Both of these things are irrelevant.
Why do you think that the formula does not consider whether the object (target) is glowing? I think Pongo's use is equally inappropriate for either glowing or not glowing objects. It's simply the wrong formula to use to determine whether you can see an object on a clear day.

You probably should review EnaG. Even Rowbotham in Experiment 1 predicts that the height of the target flag affects whether it could be seen. A 16-foot high object could be seen, but a 10-foot high object could not, according to R's interpretation of RET. (Oh, the irony of having to point to R. to demonstrate the confusion of modern FEers.)
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.