#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2016, 10:44:57 PM »
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).
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.
Do you understand the concept of scaling an experiment?
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!
The excess angle is simply:
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/.

#### jroa

• 3094
• Kentucky Gentleman
##### Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)
« Reply #41 on: December 30, 2016, 01:05:33 AM »
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).
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.
Do you understand the concept of scaling an experiment?
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!
The excess angle is simply:
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/.

Oh, that makes it alright to lie, then?