1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 29, 2015, 09:35:31 PM »

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.

Look at my latest reply, this applies to you too, I am a puny school kid, I am in no position to do experiments like that but theoretically you could fly a drone or what ever is most practical.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 29, 2015, 09:26:19 PM »

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...

and

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 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.

If you want to take a dig at the practicality of it, feel free but we are in the future - we have drones, we have self driving cares. Get one of them to do it so you don't have to, because by the looks of things you don't do experiments.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 29, 2015, 03:48:56 PM »

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?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 29, 2015, 03:30:45 PM »

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.

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.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 29, 2015, 03:29:36 PM »

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.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 29, 2015, 03:27:31 PM »

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.

Sorry but what? I think the whole point of doing it on a smaller scaled ball, is that you can scale it up and the "mathematics" or the "logic" is still the same. I really don't see your thought process please explain it.

[/quote]

why you think we are so ignorant about geometry

[/quote]

I don't recall insulting anyone's geometry skills here...

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 29, 2015, 03:23:15 PM »

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.

I'm sorry there, you miss interpreted my wording. I meant for you to understand that when I said scale it up, I meant you were doing it on a smaller ball. So an exercise ball for example, which is what we used.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 29, 2015, 03:21:28 PM »

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.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 29, 2015, 03:20:20 PM »

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'm interested, could you find the source for me?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 28, 2015, 09:03:15 PM »

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.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 28, 2015, 08:54:57 PM »

We don't mathematically dispute that argument.  The problem is that nobody has ever actually done it, making this nothing more than conjecture.

I'm sorry for wording my question wrongly, I realise now I didn't mean mathematically I just mean disprove it.
I see no reason to pick holes in my question when it's really, quite obvious what I meant...

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 28, 2015, 08:53:29 PM »

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.

13

Flat Earth Theory / I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: April 28, 2015, 06:31:18 PM »

Hey y'all Round Earther Speaking here, I have very little knowledge in the scheme of things but I feel as though this is a valid question.
I've looked through your forums for a while now and I've decided it would be useful to say at the start I'm not accepting "Have you done it yourself" as an answer, 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."


Edit: Please, if you feel the need to respond, don't slag the wording of my question off, if you legitimately don't understand what the question is asking, just say. Don't give me any comments that aren't answers