Yes, it's like me asking you to mathematically disprove this statement:
"If you walked 10,000 km in a straight line, turned 90 degrees and did the same thing three more times, you would have walked in a square. This is impossible on a curved surface."
No one disagrees with these statements mathematically.
We don't mathematically dispute that argument. The problem is that nobody has ever actually done it, making this nothing more than conjecture.
What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.
Go ahead. Perform your experiment.
What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.
Go ahead. Perform your experiment.
It has been done, but on a smaller scale, but the logic is the same on the earth (If perfectly round).
I propose to you (Flat Earthers) to disprove it. Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
kaythxbye :-*
I've never heard of anyone doing this experiment. If it has been done before, then we should probably see the source for this claim.
What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.
Go ahead. Perform your experiment.
It has been done, but on a smaller scale, but the logic is the same on the earth (If perfectly round).
I propose to you (Flat Earthers) to disprove it. Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.
Go ahead. Perform your experiment.
It has been done, but on a smaller scale, but the logic is the same on the earth (If perfectly round).
I propose to you (Flat Earthers) to disprove it. Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
You do realize that if this is done on a small scale, you can not make a triangle, whether the Earth is round or flat, right? If you don't believe me, go to a park, walk 100 meters, turn 90 degrees, etc. and you will not have made a triangle.
In reality, this is just a thought experiment. If the Earth is round, then this is what you would expect to happen. This does not mean that it has ever happened. Yes, you can do it on a beach ball or something, but who cares? It has never been performed on the Earth. Frankly, I don't see what this has to do with the Earth, or why you think we are so ignorant about geometry that we would try to mathematically or otherwise try to disprove this.
A 270 degree triangle has never been mapped, but a triangle is excess of 180 degrees has. Rowbotham even admits it.The Earth is not a perfect two-dimensional plane. Of course you'd see some triangles which don't add up to 180°. On a small scale, this is true both for RET and FET. There will be some convex sections, and some concave sections.
Yes, it's like me asking you to mathematically disprove this statement:
"If you walked 10,000 km in a straight line, turned 90 degrees and did the same thing three more times, you would have walked in a square. This is impossible on a curved surface."
No one disagrees with these statements mathematically.
Uh, I can't tell if you're making a sarcastic comment or you're being serious. You can just scale it down to a large ball (Or what ever size you wanted) and scale the "10,000" down with it. Then try to do the experiment, you'd just back track over one of the lines, the original line.
Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.
Go ahead. Perform your experiment.
It has been done, but on a smaller scale, but the logic is the same on the earth (If perfectly round).
I propose to you (Flat Earthers) to disprove it. Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
kaythxbye :-*
Everyone agrees that his would be a good test of the Earth's shape. What should be pointed out is that this phenomena is observed on a smaller scale and Samuel Birley Rowbotham weakly passed it off as a collimation error when using a theodolite. The truth is Rowbotham's objection is weak and triangles in excess of 180 degrees have been observed.
I've never heard of anyone doing this experiment. If it has been done before, then we should probably see the source for this claim.
What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.
Go ahead. Perform your experiment.
It has been done, but on a smaller scale, but the logic is the same on the earth (If perfectly round).
I propose to you (Flat Earthers) to disprove it. Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
You do realize that if this is done on a small scale, you can not make a triangle, whether the Earth is round or flat, right? If you don't believe me, go to a park, walk 100 meters, turn 90 degrees, etc. and you will not have made a triangle.
What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.
Go ahead. Perform your experiment.
It has been done, but on a smaller scale, but the logic is the same on the earth (If perfectly round).
I propose to you (Flat Earthers) to disprove it. Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
but who cares? It has never been performed on the Earth.
A 270 degree triangle has never been mapped, but a triangle is excess of 180 degrees has. Rowbotham even admits it.There will be some convex sections, and some concave sections.
Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
Because the Earth is flat, and therefore a "scaled-up" round object would not be anything like the Earth.
I've never heard of anyone doing this experiment. If it has been done before, then we should probably see the source for this claim.
I wasn't saying the experiment has been done on the earth, I said it has been done on a smaller scale and it could be scaled up to fit the earth.
I did the experiment, it was what got me thinking, it's a simple classroom experiment you can do.
I've never heard of anyone doing this experiment. If it has been done before, then we should probably see the source for this claim.
I wasn't saying the experiment has been done on the earth, I said it has been done on a smaller scale and it could be scaled up to fit the earth.
I did the experiment, it was what got me thinking, it's a simple classroom experiment you can do.
I'm saying the average curvature of the earth could very roughly be dictated because it's slightly elongated but still roughly spherical. But still enough to prove it is round and not flat which is really the main point I'm trying to get across
Are you saying the curvature of the earth can be detected on such a small scale?
A 270 degree triangle has never been mapped, but a triangle is excess of 180 degrees has. Rowbotham even admits it.There will be some convex sections, and some concave sections.
I think here is where you need to not take my question so literally and imagine that the surface was just an average level - an imaginary platform that was "an average" of the mountain and valleys.
I think here is where you need to not take my question so literally and imagine that the surface was just an average level - an imaginary platform that was "an average" of the mountain and valleys.It's really starting to sound like your question has nothing to do with any model of the Earth...
I think here is where you need to not take my question so literally and imagine that the surface was just an average level - an imaginary platform that was "an average" of the mountain and valleys.It's really starting to sound like your question has nothing to do with any model of the Earth...
I think here is where you need to not take my question so literally and imagine that the surface was just an average level - an imaginary platform that was "an average" of the mountain and valleys.It's really starting to sound like your question has nothing to do with any model of the Earth...
A 270 degree triangle has never been mapped, but a triangle is excess of 180 degrees has. Rowbotham even admits it.There will be some convex sections, and some concave sections.
I think here is where you need to not take my question so literally and imagine that the surface was just an average level - an imaginary platform that was "an average" of the mountain and valleys.
Okay, but you aren't proving anything. You're creating a hypothetical situation in which you could prove the Earth is round, but you are not proving that the Earth is round. You're proposing a experiment that is famous for being impossible to perform. Unless you want to try it and document your results, there's not much I can do for you.
I am fully aware that my question isn't going to give you the shape of the earth. But for goodness sake it is good enough and close enough to tell you that the world is round and I don't see how you don't see it.You're talking about a completely hypothetical scenario. If the Earth is a perfect sphere, you're right. If it's not, you're wrong.
A 270 degree triangle has never been mapped, but a triangle is excess of 180 degrees has. Rowbotham even admits it.The Earth is not a perfect two-dimensional plane. Of course you'd see some triangles which don't add up to 180°. On a small scale, this is true both for RET and FET. There will be some convex sections, and some concave sections.
If your scenario were correct then you would expect that this correction would often yield inaccurate results. This is not the caseI would need to see some supporting reasoning and evidence for that claim. Bear in mind that no one's claiming that the Earth is perfectly flat. In most cases, it's largely convex or concave.
If your scenario were correct then you would expect that this correction would often yield inaccurate results. This is not the caseI would need to see some evidence of that. Bear in mind that no one's claiming that the Earth is perfectly flat. In most cases, it's largely convex or concave.
I want legit mathematical proof that debunks my question:
"If you walked 10,000 km in a straight line, turned 90 degrees and did the same thing two more times, you would have walked in a triangle. This is impossible on a flat surface."
That is completely invalid and just a waste of your time and my time. You can use "because the earth is flat" as evidence for the earth being flat. That is just dumb and I'm sure you know it.
I don't see how that addresses my point. Of course there's curvature there to account for. Nobody's disputing that.
You asked for some evidence that the radius of the Earth was involved in the correction for curvature. I did that. You're welcome.No, I asked for evidence that this is practically necessary in the real world (note that I cut off your quote at "this is not the case", not sooner, not later. Context, context, context.). I particularly like you injecting the insinuation that I said anything about the Earth's radius in this conversation. I did not do that, and I'd appreciate it if you took your strawmen elsewhere.
You asked for some evidence that the radius of the Earth was involved in the correction for curvature. I did that. You're welcome.No, I asked for evidence that this is practically necessary in the real world (note that I cut off your quote at "this is not the case", not sooner, not later. Context, context, context.). I particularly like you injecting the insinuation that I said anything about the Earth's radius in this conversation. I did not do that, and I'd appreciate it if you took your strawmen elsewhere.
The OP is clearly confused about the difference between his thought experiment and something that can actually shed light on the real world, and explaining that to him is much more important than your petty bickering.
Well you get what you asked for. If don't ask for what you specifically want, you don't get it. If you want something more specific please communicate better instead of painting it as my failing. I also never bickered, that was you. Thanks very much.What I specifically want is for you to refrain from off-topic posting in this thread. A warning to this effect will follow.
What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.
Go ahead. Perform your experiment.
It has been done, but on a smaller scale, but the logic is the same on the earth (If perfectly round).
I propose to you (Flat Earthers) to disprove it. Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
You do realize that if this is done on a small scale, you can not make a triangle, whether the Earth is round or flat, right? If you don't believe me, go to a park, walk 100 meters, turn 90 degrees, etc. and you will not have made a triangle.
In reality, this is just a thought experiment. If the Earth is round, then this is what you would expect to happen. This does not mean that it has ever happened. Yes, you can do it on a beach ball or something, but who cares? It has never been performed on the Earth. Frankly, I don't see what this has to do with the Earth, or why you think we are so ignorant about geometry that we would try to mathematically or otherwise try to disprove this.
The extra angle in a triangle drawn on a sphere is well know in geodetic surveying as the Spherical Excess, but is simply not the thing any ordinary person can do!Do you understand the concept of scaling an experiment?You do realize that if this is done on a small scale, you can not make a triangle, whether the Earth is round or flat, right? If you don't believe me, go to a park, walk 100 meters, turn 90 degrees, etc. and you will not have made a triangle.What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.It has been done, but on a smaller scale, but the logic is the same on the earth (If perfectly round).
Go ahead. Perform your experiment.
I propose to you (Flat Earthers) to disprove it. Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
In reality, this is just a thought experiment. If the Earth is round, then this is what you would expect to happen. This does not mean that it has ever happened. Yes, you can do it on a beach ball or something, but who cares? It has never been performed on the Earth. Frankly, I don't see what this has to do with the Earth, or why you think we are so ignorant about geometry that we would try to mathematically or otherwise try to disprove this.
Say the size of a large sphere is 20,000 units and it spins at 1,000 units per hour.
To scale that experiment down, let's say 1/10 scale, the smaller (scale) sphere would be 2,000 units and the spin would be 100 units per hour.
From the original post the distance traveled would also scale down proportionately to 1,000 units.
This is the way scale works. All parameters are treated to the same scale factor. Your example above is not equivalent to scale modeling.
The extra angle in a triangle drawn on a sphere is well know in geodetic surveying as the Spherical Excess, but is simply not the thing any ordinary person can do!Do you understand the concept of scaling an experiment?You do realize that if this is done on a small scale, you can not make a triangle, whether the Earth is round or flat, right? If you don't believe me, go to a park, walk 100 meters, turn 90 degrees, etc. and you will not have made a triangle.What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.It has been done, but on a smaller scale, but the logic is the same on the earth (If perfectly round).
Go ahead. Perform your experiment.
I propose to you (Flat Earthers) to disprove it. Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.
In reality, this is just a thought experiment. If the Earth is round, then this is what you would expect to happen. This does not mean that it has ever happened. Yes, you can do it on a beach ball or something, but who cares? It has never been performed on the Earth. Frankly, I don't see what this has to do with the Earth, or why you think we are so ignorant about geometry that we would try to mathematically or otherwise try to disprove this.
Say the size of a large sphere is 20,000 units and it spins at 1,000 units per hour.
To scale that experiment down, let's say 1/10 scale, the smaller (scale) sphere would be 2,000 units and the spin would be 100 units per hour.
From the original post the distance traveled would also scale down proportionately to 1,000 units.
This is the way scale works. All parameters are treated to the same scale factor. Your example above is not equivalent to scale modeling.
The excess angle is simply:see a long winded article in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry).720° x (area of the triangle)/(surface area of the sphere)So the triangle with 10,000 km sides is just one eigth the total area of the sphere, so the excess is 90°.
"On the Earth the excess of an equilateral triangle with sides 21.3 km (and area 393 km2) is approximately 1 arc second." same article.No, unless are surveying very large areas, forget this as a practical test!
Just to conclude, TayIrving on April 28, 2015, 09:03:15 PM says, "but who cares? It has never been performed on the Earth" is simply not correct. It is just a standard part of Geodetic Surveying, just look up http://civilengineersforum.com/geodetic-surveying/ (http://civilengineersforum.com/geodetic-surveying/).