### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - Gulliver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« on: March 05, 2015, 07:51:03 PM »
We are already bending over backwards to accommodate your nitpicking. Even if we conced every variable and give you benifit on each of them it won't account for the 55 more miles you need for round-earth theory to be true. Give it up, the proof is before you.
It's your faulty proof. Deal with the critiques or give up.

2
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« on: March 05, 2015, 07:11:49 PM »
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

I agree. Since the earth is flat, the distance to the horizon is irrelevant.

However, let's continue on with the delusion that globularism is a possible scenario here. In order to see something from the top of the CN tower, the distance to the horizon from the top of the target object plus the distance to the horizon from the top of the CN tower must be greater than or equal to the distance between the objects.

H1 + H2 >= D

We already have H1, which Pongo calculated to be 45.65 miles. Since we're talking about a target object 100 miles away, the distance to the horizon from the target object is (generously) 54 miles (241,000 feet).

Let's reverse Pongo's equation to find how high this theoretical object would have to be.

241,000 = 20903520*ARCOS(20903520/(20903250+H))

Wolfram Alpha computes H as being equal to about 1400 feet. Thus, and unsurprisingly, this suggests that the target object would have to be much, much taller than the CN tower itself on a round Earth.

Congratulations to FEers on correcting two errors explained by REers' critiques of this sophomoric, failed proof. I'm happy to see that Pongo and revised his proof to use the altitude, not the height above CN Tower's foundation, of the observer. That took only 5 pages to correct one error.

Now I see that you've decided to correct, though snidely, Pongo's error when he failed to consider that the formula Pongo used provides the distance to the horizon (inaccurately), not the distance the observer can see. Congratulations on that, though it took 5 pages too.

Now let's review the remaining errors in the FEer failed proof:
1) The altitude of the surface of Lake Ontario, not just the radius of the RE, should be used.
2) The result, once you correct for the above error, is not the height of the target, as you claim. It's the altitude. Pongo understands that on the Tower side now. Now you need to consider it of the target side.

Once you fix the remaining errors, do stop back. Thank you for trying harder.

3
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« on: March 05, 2015, 01:39:19 AM »
Calculating the Drop

The Earth is a sphere with a radius of 3963 miles at sea level. Converting that to feet we get: 3963 * 5280 ft to a mile = 20924640 ft above the center of the earth. Add 1,118 feet for the observation deck and height of the observer (Pongo's figure) and we are now 20925758 ft above the center of the earth.

The distance being looked across is 41.15 miles. Converting that to feet we get 100 * 5280 ft to a mile = 217272 ft

...

Using the theorem of Pythagoras we can use:

a^2 = 20925758^2 + 217272^2 = 437934554996548

when we square root that figure we get a = 20926885.9364 ft

thus your position is 20926885.9364 - 20924640 (radius of the earth) = 2245.9364 feet above the surface of the earth.

Hence, after 41.15 miles, the earth would drop 2245.9364 feet.

The tallest building in the world is the Burj Khalifa at 2,717 ft and the second tallest building in the world is the Shanghai Tower at 2,073 ft. I submit that the Burj Khalifa is not in Niagara Falls. Therefore the earth is flat.
Again, wrong formula. Again, FEers ignore that Lake Ontario, the CN Tower, and the target object are not on the surface of the hypothetical sphere. They have altitude more than their height. Do you really think that Lake Ontario is at sea level? Please do try harder. Why do you believe that you can't see beyond the drop? Do you think the photons get too tired to travel over Lake Ontario? Please think.

4
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« on: March 04, 2015, 05:19:00 PM »
Oh, and I've already produced attributed photographs showing that you can indeed see objects more that 41 miles away from the CN Tower, so, no, I will not claim that fact to be false. Integrity is important.

Right... you can see objects more than 41 miles away from CN Tower because the earth is flat.  What do you think we're discussing in this thread?
We are discussing "Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths". Now if you'd be so kind as to address the repeated challenge: What Round-Earth Maths require that you not be able to see more than 41 miles away from CN Tower, you might make progress. Please do try harder.

5
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: No Transmission Delays to the Moon
« on: March 04, 2015, 03:34:40 AM »
Yes, but why is does the response Huston gives after, according to you when the astronaut interrupted them, perfectly match up with the delay, down to millisecond accuracy? Huston speaks a full sentence: ""If you have any, yeah, some of those today" and then the astronaut immediately replies "No, we emptied those into 5." Why is Huston's question spot on in length? One would think that the sentences would overlap, or there would be a gap in speech, but the astronaut responds immediately as if in the next room on a telephone call. It seems astronomical that Houston would happen to fill up the delay time with a sentence that is perfect in length and context.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.  I'm probably misunderstanding you.  What are the two things that are exactly the same length "down to the millisecond accuracy"?

To my listening, the two sentences do overlap.  Schmitt doesn't reply, "No, we emptied those into 5."  Did you listen to the audio clip?  He replies, "No we...we em...we emptied those into 5."  In the pauses you can distinctly hear Parker's voice.

If the Astronaut really interrupt huston, it seems odd that huston filled in the delay gap with a question of perfect length, to which an immediate answer of "No" was given. You would think that it could have been a shorter question, or a longer one, or not even a question at all, but the length of the question Huston asked just happened to be the correct length to which an answer was immediately given by the delayed astronauts interrupting huston midspeech.
So since you're seen a black swan, you know that that there are no white swans, right?

(Black swan <=> rare coincidence of overlaying communications matching up; White swan <=> regularly observed and documented, and predicted delay.)

LRN2LOGIC (Oh, and it's "Houston", as in the Texan city.)

6
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« on: March 04, 2015, 03:30:08 AM »
We're talking about whether or not standing on the top of the CN tower moves the horizon to more than 100 miles away, which it does not.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to argue about arguing about an argument with you, Markjo. This is getting too meta.
<Whiplash> Ts, you made an outlandish claim and ran away from it in your very next post. How low can you go?

No one has made the claim that "standing on the top of the CN tower moves the horizon to more than 100 miles away", except you in that post, though that's all Pongo's errant proof disputed.

Pongo and you built a straw man: the horizon can't be as far away as the objects you can see. And now want credit for knocking it over. It's easy to win a straw man argument for FEers, isn't it?

Again, wrong formula. I renew my challenge: show any RET claim that Pongo's use, of the formula to estimate the distance to the horizon, shows how far you can see from a tower on the RE. Attacking that RET is wrong about something RET doesn't even say is simply juvenile.

Oh, and I've already produced attributed photographs showing that you can indeed see objects more that 41 miles away from the CN Tower, so, no, I will not claim that fact to be false. Integrity is important.

You really should consider pp's advice to Thork on another issue: Don't demonstrate that you can't solve high-school level physics problems, or at least not so often.

7
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:22:45 PM »
It's your claim that you've proven that the earth is not round.

OMG, it was my claim that you can't see 100 miles from the CN tower and I posted a freaking proof with it. You claim it's incorrect then YOU have to demonstrate it. If I stand outside a museum and shout evolution is wrong because of x, it's not the job of the museumists to come outside and prove me wrong. If I make the claim that they are wrong then I would have demonstrate why; just as you do.
No you have not posted a proof. You used the wrong formula. There is NOTHING in RET that supports your outlandish claim. Shouting that you've proven something doesn't shift your burden of proof. You still need to defend your proof. Here: why did you use that formula? Can you find a single RET source that states that the formula determines how far you can see on a clear day? Even R. disagrees with you. Even Jon Davis tried this and failed. You must explain the reason you don't include the height off the water of either the source or the target. By the way, you make an inherent error by omitting both. You fail.

8
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« on: March 03, 2015, 10:43:38 PM »
Nobody is talking about how high something would have to be to be been except for you. The rest of us are talking about how far away something of a presumably minimal height could be seen from the top of the CN tower. This entire argument is a red herring.
Wonderful! Now just tell me how you decided that the target object must be of minimal height. Surely you're not claiming that
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CN_Tower
On a clear day, it is possible to see up to 100 to 120 km (62 to 75 mi) away, to the city of Rochester across Lake Ontario in the United States, the mist rising from Niagara Falls, or the shores of Lake Simcoe.
is talking about an object of minimal height, are you? Where in that sentence do you see a word in any way similar to "minimal"?

Why did R. use a 10-foot (not minimal height) flag in Experiment 1?

I'm talking about how high would an object have to be to be seen 100 (75?) miles away on a clear day from the observation deck of the CN Tower.. Why would we be discussing anything different? Don't infer "minimal" for your convenience in another's sentence please. Please do try harder.

9
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« on: March 03, 2015, 08:10:17 PM »
All you can do is repeat "wrong formula" ad nauseum.  If it's the wrong formula then prove it.  I posted a perfectly good formula and I will not address each person that isn't happy with the results.  If you want to make the claim that I used an incorrect formula then the onus is on you to back that claim up.  Perhaps if you just tried a bit harder...
I have done more than just repeat "wrong formula". For example, I pointed out your error in measuring the height without the altitude of the base of the CM Tower. I've provided a diagram to assist you in understanding your error. I've provided a reference from EnaG showing that R. comes up with a different way to determine what you can see, not using the same formula as you claim is correct.

It's your claim that you've proven that the earth is not round. Show us one reference that states that your formula, especially without considering the height about water, is correct.

You might consider using your approach to get R. answer in Experiment 1. I bet you can't reproduce his results.

Why is high school math so hard for you? Please do try harder.

10
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« on: March 03, 2015, 05:13:47 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.)

Okay, but why is any of this relevant to whether or not you can see 100 miles from the top of the CN Tower?
R. approach is the correct one for the challenge. He seems to have used the correct formula to determine how high off the water the target would have be be visible from 6 (vice 100) miles away and inches (vice 1,118 feet + the height of the base of the CN Tower above Lake Ontario) off the water. Note that R. correctly measures height (of both observer's eyes and the top of the distant object) from the water, unlike FEers in this thread in their fail. (That mistake alone is enough to invalidate Pongo's lame proof.)

If R. can get it right, and took the time to write down the results, modern FEers should be able to do even better. So how high off of Lake Ontario would an object 100 miles away across the Lake have to be to be visible on a clear day from the Observation Deck of the CN Tower? Get the right formula. Do the calculation. Show that you can see an object shorter than that and then we can further consider your proof that the Earth is not round. So far though, FEers have failed miserably.

I've already drawn the correct diagram for you even. Now please do better.

11
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« 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.)

12
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« 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.

13
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« 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.

14
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: The Hampden-Wallace wager
« on: March 02, 2015, 05:35:23 PM »
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?

I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
So you can't answer the simple challenge: Find a source that argues your side that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth. This is an inherent part of your outlandish argument. You have claimed it without any support. You have ignored that it's not true at given locations, such as the Falls. You fail.
I did. the River Nile is my example. It flows, it should follow the curvature of the earth or jut out into space. I'm at the point where I feel our respective IQs are too far apart for either of us to enjoy a debate so I'm going to let the other FErs entertain you from now on.

No, we're done. I don't need to take orders from you.
Then we're left to conclude that you're running away from backing up your outlandish claims, again. I never expected better from you.

15
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« 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.

16
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: The Hampden-Wallace wager
« on: March 02, 2015, 04:58:40 PM »
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?

I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
So you can't answer the simple challenge: Find a source that argues your side that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth. This is an inherent part of your outlandish argument. You have claimed it without any support. You have ignored that it's not true at given locations, such as the Falls. You fail.
I did. the River Nile is my example. It flows, it should follow the curvature of the earth or jut out into space. I'm at the point where I feel our respective IQs are too far apart for either of us to enjoy a debate so I'm going to let the other FErs entertain you from now on.

17
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« 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?

18
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« 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.

19
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: The Hampden-Wallace wager
« on: March 02, 2015, 01:38:24 PM »
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?

I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
So you can't answer the simple challenge: Find a source that argues your side that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth. This is an inherent part of your outlandish argument. You have claimed it without any support. You have ignored that it's not true at given locations, such as the Falls. You fail.

20
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« 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?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33  Next >