[TayIrving]

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

[Saddam Hussein]

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

[Pongo]

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.

[TayIrving]

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.

[TayIrving]

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...

[Pete Svarrior]

What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.

Go ahead. Perform your experiment.

[TayIrving]

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.

[Rama Set]

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. 

[Saddam Hussein]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

Rowbotham addresses the phenomena in ENaG. Look up "spherical excess", it is a well known surveying issue.

[jroa]

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. 

[Rama Set]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Pongo]

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.

You can scale my statement down to a chalkboard. What's your point?

[xasop]

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.

[TayIrving]

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?

[TayIrving]

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.

[TayIrving]

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.

[TayIrving]

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...

[TayIrving]

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.