totallackey

Salt flats
« on: March 31, 2016, 11:02:43 PM »
Hi,

New post from a new forum member. I did a search and did not find this suggestion anywhere here.

Seems to me a person could go to Bonneville or Salar de Uyuni with 100 one meter long poles, 11Km of construction twine,and ten line levels. Pick a point and drive a stake one-half meter in depth. Tie off the line at half the remaining stake. Walk 10Km out, driving a stake every 10 meters to the same depth and repeat the tie off. Place a line level at every half a kilometer.

Would the result prove or disprove a flat earth?

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Salt flats
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2016, 11:06:32 PM »
Welcome to the forum OP.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Salt flats
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2016, 01:09:24 AM »
To elaborate on what Luke Chapter:Verse said, each new ad hoc argument is welcome! But that doesn't mean it's anyone's job to go out and do the field research for you.

If globe knew it were legit, would defend itself? If it were afraid of being found out, would it bother?
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

totallackey

Re: Salt flats
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2016, 04:59:02 PM »
To elaborate on what Luke Chapter:Verse said, each new ad hoc argument is welcome! But that doesn't mean it's anyone's job to go out and do the field research for you.

If globe knew it were legit, would defend itself? If it were afraid of being found out, would it bother?

I was not asking for anyone to go out and do the research for me. I was asking for thought on the suggested experiment. I am asking for people to voice their imagination as to the outcome of the proposed experiment. What is wrong with that?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2016, 07:27:12 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Salt flats
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2016, 02:25:12 AM »
I was not asking for anyone to go out and do the research for me. I was asking for thought on the suggested experiment. I am asking for people to voice their imagination as to the outcome of the proposed experiment. What is wrong with that?

Granted, I expected that. I have several things I'd love to test as well if budget permitted. I did [imply that I did] give you kudos for such an experiment. Hell. I'll even give you a freebie. From my (currently hidden) compilation of FE talking points; Kansas proven to be flat. Great point bringing up Salt Flats, a point not least of which it being mentioned in a movie you might know.

Edit since I'm new here too, I'll inform you of what I've seen here; most users here have seen every ad hoc argument front middle and center so you *may* have come to the wrong place if you think you're going to convince someone. If that doesn't bother you, a genuine welcome!
« Last Edit: April 03, 2016, 02:46:08 AM by nametaken »
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

totallackey

Re: Salt flats
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2016, 10:58:23 AM »
I was not asking for anyone to go out and do the research for me. I was asking for thought on the suggested experiment. I am asking for people to voice their imagination as to the outcome of the proposed experiment. What is wrong with that?

Granted, I expected that. I have several things I'd love to test as well if budget permitted. I did [imply that I did] give you kudos for such an experiment. Hell. I'll even give you a freebie. From my (currently hidden) compilation of FE talking points; Kansas proven to be flat. Great point bringing up Salt Flats, a point not least of which it being mentioned in a movie you might know.

Edit since I'm new here too, I'll inform you of what I've seen here; most users here have seen every ad hoc argument front middle and center so you *may* have come to the wrong place if you think you're going to convince someone. If that doesn't bother you, a genuine welcome!

Would you share your thoughts on the results of my proposed experiment?

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Salt flats
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2016, 06:08:28 PM »
1.  There is either a math error or a typo in your original proposal.  One hundred poles spaced ten meters apart gives you a final distance of 990 meters, or ten meters shy of one kilometer, not ten kilometers.  If you want to span a distance of ten kilometers, you either need ten times as many poles (plus one) or space them at one hundred meter intervals (again, plus one pole). 

2.  A line stretched between two supports will not be truly straight.  No matter how taut you make it, gravity will still pull the center down ever so slightly into a shape called a catenary curve.  Perhaps not enough to be visible, but if this experiment is trying to prove something on a world-size scale, the deviation from the straight line might matter.  Same effect even if you use something more rigid like an I-beam, but to a much, much smaller degree (after all, that's what I-beams are FOR, keeping straight in spite of gravity)

3.  None of the above actually matters in the end, because under both the RE and the FE model, at all points along your apparatus the line levels will read level.  In the FE model, the line itself will actually be dead level from end to end and all points between, and the levels will show zero bubble (with perhaps a slight off-angle at each pole, caused by the catenary).  In the RE model, the line will not be straight end to end, but will form a segmented curve as the poles follow the curvature of the earth.  Still, every level will read to its local center of gravity and show level (with the same off-angle at each pole, caused by either the catenary, or the curvature of the earth, or some combination of the two) because each line segment is the same height above ground and is locally level.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

totallackey

Re: Salt flats
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2016, 08:54:52 PM »
1.  There is either a math error or a typo in your original proposal.  One hundred poles spaced ten meters apart gives you a final distance of 990 meters, or ten meters shy of one kilometer, not ten kilometers.  If you want to span a distance of ten kilometers, you either need ten times as many poles (plus one) or space them at one hundred meter intervals (again, plus one pole). 

2.  A line stretched between two supports will not be truly straight.  No matter how taut you make it, gravity will still pull the center down ever so slightly into a shape called a catenary curve.  Perhaps not enough to be visible, but if this experiment is trying to prove something on a world-size scale, the deviation from the straight line might matter.  Same effect even if you use something more rigid like an I-beam, but to a much, much smaller degree (after all, that's what I-beams are FOR, keeping straight in spite of gravity)

3.  None of the above actually matters in the end, because under both the RE and the FE model, at all points along your apparatus the line levels will read level.  In the FE model, the line itself will actually be dead level from end to end and all points between, and the levels will show zero bubble (with perhaps a slight off-angle at each pole, caused by the catenary).  In the RE model, the line will not be straight end to end, but will form a segmented curve as the poles follow the curvature of the earth.  Still, every level will read to its local center of gravity and show level (with the same off-angle at each pole, caused by either the catenary, or the curvature of the earth, or some combination of the two) because each line segment is the same height above ground and is locally level.

Yeah, you are right. Bad math.

Okay, so let us change the design of the experiment.

Picture this.

A triangle with three sides on the Salt Flat. From the starting point of stake one, travel a straight line 3 Km, using a laser as a guide. Drive a stake on arrival. Next, calculate a right angle and, using a laser as a straight line guide, travel another 3 Km. Then repeat the last step. What shape do I set up or draw out on the Salt Flat?

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Salt flats
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2016, 04:29:06 PM »
Better!  I have to point out, though: three legs separated by right angles do not form a triangle, they form an open quadrilateral.  This experimental setup will show different results on a flat earth than on a round earth.  On a flat earth, if you connect the dots from your starting position to your end, the missing leg of the four sided figure will be exactly 3km long, precisely perpendicular to sides 1 and 3, and parallel to side 2.  The figure will be a perfect square.  On a round earth, however, the missing side will be less than 3km, and not perpendicular or parallel to any of the previous sides.  This is because on the round surface, the third leg is not parallel to the first leg along its entire length.  This is easiest to see in the extreme, where each leg is a significant way around the world.  Let's start at the Arctic Circle, near (but not AT) the North Pole, and go south a little less than 1/4 of the way around the world, so you end up at the equator.  Turn left 90 degrees to face east, and go the same distance.  Still at the equator.  Turn left 90 degrees to face north, and go the same distance.  You're back at the Arctic Circle, some small distance east of your starting point.  The fourth side of the quadrilateral is quite a bit smaller than the other three sides.  The same result, but much smaller, will be obtained if you can accurately produce straight 3km legs on a round earth and accurately measure the distance of the final leg.  I don't know what the difference would be, it may be too small to be detected by amatuer level equipment, but a surveyor would be able to measure it.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

totallackey

Re: Salt flats
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2016, 12:16:52 AM »
Better!  I have to point out, though: three legs separated by right angles do not form a triangle, they form an open quadrilateral.  This experimental setup will show different results on a flat earth than on a round earth.  On a flat earth, if you connect the dots from your starting position to your end, the missing leg of the four sided figure will be exactly 3km long, precisely perpendicular to sides 1 and 3, and parallel to side 2.  The figure will be a perfect square.  On a round earth, however, the missing side will be less than 3km, and not perpendicular or parallel to any of the previous sides.  This is because on the round surface, the third leg is not parallel to the first leg along its entire length.  This is easiest to see in the extreme, where each leg is a significant way around the world.  Let's start at the Arctic Circle, near (but not AT) the North Pole, and go south a little less than 1/4 of the way around the world, so you end up at the equator.  Turn left 90 degrees to face east, and go the same distance.  Still at the equator.  Turn left 90 degrees to face north, and go the same distance.  You're back at the Arctic Circle, some small distance east of your starting point.  The fourth side of the quadrilateral is quite a bit smaller than the other three sides.  The same result, but much smaller, will be obtained if you can accurately produce straight 3km legs on a round earth and accurately measure the distance of the final leg.  I don't know what the difference would be, it may be too small to be detected by amatuer level equipment, but a surveyor would be able to measure it.

Now wait a minute...

Just a couple of things...

Speculate please on whether or not I will complete the shape of a square or triangle at the conclusion of this experiment...That was the purpose of the OP.

2nd, if we have all manner of persons advocating RE with anecdotal evidence of being able to witness curvature simply by way of the disappearing boat, then why would any calibrated instrument, regardless of make/model be unable to assist...I mean, the eyeballs should be enough to do the experiment...I myself have built a shed without a builder square...turned out square, 90 degree angles on all four sides...3/4/5.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 12:24:02 AM by totallackey »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Salt flats
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2016, 05:17:26 AM »
Speculate please on whether or not I will complete the shape of a square or triangle at the conclusion of this experiment...That was the purpose of the OP.
You will complete a perfect square on a flat earth, and a near-perfect square on a round earth.  So near, that it might not be measurably different from a perfect square using non-professional equipment.

2nd, if we have all manner of persons advocating RE with anecdotal evidence of being able to witness curvature simply by way of the disappearing boat, then why would any calibrated instrument, regardless of make/model be unable to assist...I mean, the eyeballs should be enough to do the experiment...I myself have built a shed without a builder square...turned out square, 90 degree angles on all four sides...3/4/5.

OK, I'll do the math. Suppose we take this experiment and do it at the equator.  I do this only because the visualization is easier there, with the equator and lines of longitude being perpendicular.  Take a 3km line on the equator, and construct a pair of 3km lines going north from there.  The north ends of those two lines will be slightly closer together than the 3km we started with, because they are each arcing along the curved surface toward the same point: the north pole.  How much closer together?  Well, if the earth has a circumference of 40,000 km (rounding off) then a 3km arc represents an angle of 0.027 degrees.  The circumference of a circle parallel to the equator, but 0.027 degrees north of it, will be cosine of that angle times the original circumference: 0.999999888966953 x 40,000km = 39,999.995km.  That's a difference of 5 meters.  Sounds like a lot, right?  I mean, that's 15 feet!  Ah, but that's 5 meters difference all the way around the world.  For our little 3km section, which is 0.0075% of the total, the difference is only 0.000333 meters.  One third of a millimeter!  That's less than 1/64th of an inch.  Your typical laser pointer dot is around 1/8 of an inch, which is 8 times the difference we want to detect.  That's what I mean by "too small to be detected by amatuer level equipment"
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline thatsnice

  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Don't you just love Reuleaux triangles?
    • View Profile
Re: Salt flats
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2016, 09:51:42 PM »

Yeah, you are right. Bad math.

Okay, so let us change the design of the experiment.

Picture this.

A triangle with three sides on the Salt Flat. From the starting point of stake one, travel a straight line 3 Km, using a laser as a guide. Drive a stake on arrival. Next, calculate a right angle and, using a laser as a straight line guide, travel another 3 Km. Then repeat the last step. What shape do I set up or draw out on the Salt Flat?


Well, non-euclidian geometry states that on the surface of a sphere, one can make a triangle with angles that do not add up to 180 degrees, so, if you were to spread three poles out over an extremely long distance, take their coordinates, and calculate the angles with some basic trig. If they were to come out to 180: flat earth, >180: spherical earth. <180: uh oh, concave earth. That would be a viable experiment.
"You never go full retard."

Offline Sputnik

  • *
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Salt flats
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2016, 06:36:17 PM »

Yeah, you are right. Bad math.

Okay, so let us change the design of the experiment.

Picture this.

A triangle with three sides on the Salt Flat. From the starting point of stake one, travel a straight line 3 Km, using a laser as a guide. Drive a stake on arrival. Next, calculate a right angle and, using a laser as a straight line guide, travel another 3 Km. Then repeat the last step. What shape do I set up or draw out on the Salt Flat?


Well, non-euclidian geometry states that on the surface of a sphere, one can make a triangle with angles that do not add up to 180 degrees, so, if you were to spread three poles out over an extremely long distance, take their coordinates, and calculate the angles with some basic trig. If they were to come out to 180: flat earth, >180: spherical earth. <180: uh oh, concave earth. That would be a viable experiment.

If pictures from space are rejected, why would the completion and documentation of this experiment be accepted?

Re: Salt flats
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2016, 06:52:12 PM »
If pictures from space are rejected, why would the completion and documentation of this experiment be accepted?

It probably wouldn't, which is why I advocate proofs that are easier for the average person to confirm. (Don't derail this thread by debating the proofs I linked to please!)

But that's beside the point. It's still an interesting experiment to discuss.

Offline Sputnik

  • *
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Salt flats
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2016, 06:54:58 PM »
If pictures from space are rejected, why would the completion and documentation of this experiment be accepted?

It probably wouldn't, which is why I advocate proofs that are easier for the average person to confirm. (Don't derail this thread by debating the proofs I linked to please!)

But that's beside the point. It's still an interesting experiment to discuss.

Its very interesting. The triangle idea would work, but thats not my point at all.

Dont worry about any derailments (other than this small diversion, of course), this is the last time I'll ever log in here.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 06:58:01 PM by Sputnik »