[markjo]

To be fair, you never really had a goal. You presented a mathematical statement which was true, and nobody disagreed with.  It was pointed out that depending on the real world application, it might need to be tweaked.  That is it.  Do you agree that your OP is not correct if the observer is standing 3ft from the sighting pole?

My OP is correct.

The stated method is a legitimate means for determining the altitude of an object above the earth if one knows the baseline distance to the object in question.

The only things that were really ever in question about your OP were the location of the observer's eye level and your inability to understand its relevance.

[Rama Set]

To be fair, you never really had a goal. You presented a mathematical statement which was true, and nobody disagreed with.  It was pointed out that depending on the real world application, it might need to be tweaked.  That is it.  Do you agree that your OP is not correct if the observer is standing 3ft from the sighting pole?

My OP is correct.

The stated method is a legitimate means for determining the altitude of an object above the earth if one knows the baseline distance to the object in question.

If, and only if, the base of the triangles being compared are flat.

[totallackey]

To be fair, you never really had a goal. You presented a mathematical statement which was true, and nobody disagreed with.  It was pointed out that depending on the real world application, it might need to be tweaked.  That is it.  Do you agree that your OP is not correct if the observer is standing 3ft from the sighting pole?

My OP is correct.

The stated method is a legitimate means for determining the altitude of an object above the earth if one knows the baseline distance to the object in question.

If, and only if, the base of the triangles being compared are flat.

Durrr...

You got something else you want to offer relevant to the OP?

Why would the base of the triangles not be flat?

[totallackey]

To be fair, you never really had a goal. You presented a mathematical statement which was true, and nobody disagreed with.  It was pointed out that depending on the real world application, it might need to be tweaked.  That is it.  Do you agree that your OP is not correct if the observer is standing 3ft from the sighting pole?

My OP is correct.

The stated method is a legitimate means for determining the altitude of an object above the earth if one knows the baseline distance to the object in question.

The only things that were really ever in question about your OP were the location of the observer's eye level and your inability to understand its relevance.

Since it is irrelevant to the stated method, then I suggest you are the one with the disability in this thread.

You cannot provide evidence of your position I have such inability.

[Rama Set]

To be fair, you never really had a goal. You presented a mathematical statement which was true, and nobody disagreed with.  It was pointed out that depending on the real world application, it might need to be tweaked.  That is it.  Do you agree that your OP is not correct if the observer is standing 3ft from the sighting pole?

My OP is correct.

The stated method is a legitimate means for determining the altitude of an object above the earth if one knows the baseline distance to the object in question.

If, and only if, the base of the triangles being compared are flat.

Durrr...

You got something else you want to offer relevant to the OP?

The OP doesn't have a point, really.  We are just trying to flesh out an idea here.  So, this being the Flat Earth Society, the posters are relating your incredibly vague and pointless OP to the ongoing debate over the shape of the Earth.  If you decide to rock up with a photo that shows a ten foot pole, with the Willis Tower's top matching up with the top of the pole, and write "Hey! Look!  This doesn't match properly!  The Earth is Flat!"  we would already have a strong basis to discuss the truth of that statement.

Why would the base of the triangles not be flat?

It wouldn't be flat if it was curved, obviously. 

[Bobby Shafto]

Your entire diagram depicts an entirely different set of circumstances to that which you wrote.

Moving goalposts.

It does? I did?

Let's check. Here's the scenario:

3 fixed, known values:
Distance to object from observer as measured along the base: 1383'
Height of pole: 10'
Distance from pole to observer: 3'

1 unknown value to be determined:
Height of the object: x

And here's the diagram:



Distance to object from observer as measured along the base: 1380' + 3' = 1383' : CHECK
Height of pole = 10' : CHECK
Distance from pole to observer = 3' : CHECK

What did I change from setting the problem to depicting the diagram? What goalpost did I move?

The goal was to figure the height of the distant object. My diagram includes all of the KNOWN, FiXED values for the attributes I provided. I didn't change any of them.

[totallackey]

To be fair, you never really had a goal. You presented a mathematical statement which was true, and nobody disagreed with.  It was pointed out that depending on the real world application, it might need to be tweaked.  That is it.  Do you agree that your OP is not correct if the observer is standing 3ft from the sighting pole?

My OP is correct.

The stated method is a legitimate means for determining the altitude of an object above the earth if one knows the baseline distance to the object in question.

If, and only if, the base of the triangles being compared are flat.

Durrr...

You got something else you want to offer relevant to the OP?

The OP doesn't have a point, really.  We are just trying to flesh out an idea here.  So, this being the Flat Earth Society, the posters are relating your incredibly vague and pointless OP to the ongoing debate over the shape of the Earth.  If you decide to rock up with a photo that shows a ten foot pole, with the Willis Tower's top matching up with the top of the pole, and write "Hey! Look!  This doesn't match properly!  The Earth is Flat!"  we would already have a strong basis to discuss the truth of that statement.

The OP point is the altitude of the sun over the flat earth plane can be measured.

That has always been the point.

The longer you participate in the thread, the more apparent it becomes you are simply trying to fluff it off.

Why would the base of the triangles not be flat?

It wouldn't be flat if it was curved, obviously.

Since I have offered an OP that makes no assumptions concerning curvature as there is no observed curvature between the observer (C) and point B (the point where line AB join), then your injection of curvature is nonsensical.

Of course, feel free to demonstrate your supposed math...and the difference the supposed arc would make in the final answer to an appropriate equation.

[totallackey]

Your entire diagram depicts an entirely different set of circumstances to that which you wrote.

Moving goalposts.

It does? I did?

Let's check. Here's the scenario:

3 fixed, known values:
Distance to object from observer as measured along the base: 1383'
Height of pole: 10'
Distance from pole to observer: 3'

1 unknown value to be determined:
Height of the object: x

And here's the diagram:



Distance to object from observer as measured along the base: 1380' + 3' = 1383' : CHECK
Height of pole = 10' : CHECK
Distance from pole to observer = 3' : CHECK

What did I change from setting the problem to depicting the diagram? What goalpost did I move?

The goal was to figure the height of the distant object. My diagram includes all of the KNOWN, FiXED values for the attributes I provided. I didn't change any of them.

Bobby, simply check with any surveyor and ask them about how to solve for an altitude of any object if the baseline distance from observer to bottom of object is known.

They will CLEARLY STATE to you they diagram it in the way I PRESENTED, not your method.

[Bobby Shafto]

Bobby, simply check with any surveyor and ask them about how to solve for an altitude of any object if the baseline distance from observer to bottom of object is known.

They will CLEARLY STATE to you they diagram it in the way I PRESENTED, not your method.

It's not the method that's the issue. You just need to make sure you've got the right triangle and thus right ratios.

There's nothing wrong with your opening post calculation, as long as the sighting point that's 3' behind the 10' pole is at the vertex of the triangle giving you the ratio.

If the base of the 10' pole is at the same level as the instrument or eye making the alignment sighting, then you've got the correct triangle and you can use the values of the sides of the triangle using your ratio method. But if you're standing 3' behind the pole but you calculate as if the triangle corner is at your shoes, then you've got the wrong triangle and your ratios using that wrong triangle will give you an incorrect answer. The vertex of the correct triangle will be further along the baseline behind you and the angle to the distant object that you've aligned with your eye from 3' behind the pole will be shallower than the angle coming from your feet.

The problem isn't your method the problem. It's that you said height of the aligning eye doesn't matter. It does. It matters to surveyors. 

It's been stimulating, but I can't make it any clearer. If we're still not on the same wavelength, good luck to you. I have to move on.

[Rama Set]

Since I have offered an OP that makes no assumptions concerning curvature as there is no observed curvature between the observer (C) and point B (the point where line AB join), then your injection of curvature is nonsensical.

Of course, feel free to demonstrate your supposed math...and the difference the supposed arc would make in the final answer to an appropriate equation.

If you want to apply this to the real world and calculate the altitude of the sun, then you will first have to ensure that the base of your triangle is not curved.

[totallackey]

Since I have offered an OP that makes no assumptions concerning curvature as there is no observed curvature between the observer (C) and point B (the point where line AB join), then your injection of curvature is nonsensical.

Of course, feel free to demonstrate your supposed math...and the difference the supposed arc would make in the final answer to an appropriate equation.

If you want to apply this to the real world and calculate the altitude of the sun, then you will first have to ensure that the base of your triangle is not curved.

Given you would not presume to state this same sentence to a surveyor, I will take it you have no real objection.

[Rama Set]

Since I have offered an OP that makes no assumptions concerning curvature as there is no observed curvature between the observer (C) and point B (the point where line AB join), then your injection of curvature is nonsensical.

Of course, feel free to demonstrate your supposed math...and the difference the supposed arc would make in the final answer to an appropriate equation.

If you want to apply this to the real world and calculate the altitude of the sun, then you will first have to ensure that the base of your triangle is not curved.

Given you would not presume to state this same sentence to a surveyor, I will take it you have no real objection.

Uhhh... what?  Why wouldn't I do that?  If you have a curved base to your triangle, you must determine how material that curve is to the calculation.  Since you could only level a straw man against my objection, I can only ask you to try again.

[totallackey]

Since I have offered an OP that makes no assumptions concerning curvature as there is no observed curvature between the observer (C) and point B (the point where line AB join), then your injection of curvature is nonsensical.

Of course, feel free to demonstrate your supposed math...and the difference the supposed arc would make in the final answer to an appropriate equation.

If you want to apply this to the real world and calculate the altitude of the sun, then you will first have to ensure that the base of your triangle is not curved.

Given you would not presume to state this same sentence to a surveyor, I will take it you have no real objection.

Uhhh... what?  Why wouldn't I do that?  If you have a curved base to your triangle, you must determine how material that curve is to the calculation.  Since you could only level a straw man against my objection, I can only ask you to try again.

You are the one supporting a curve exists.

I support no curve because one is not visible to me in performing the observation and the resulting calculations.

But go ahead, noble RE-er...

Provide us the math taking into account the supposed sphericity found in 1700 miles of the mythical ball earth surface...

[Rama Set]

You are the one supporting a curve exists.

Feel free to quote in this thread where I did this.  I can save you the time though, I never did.

I support no curve because one is not visible to me in performing the observation and the resulting calculations.

So if it is not visible then it does not exist?

But go ahead, noble RE-er...

Provide us the math taking into account the supposed sphericity found in 1700 miles of the mythical ball earth surface...

I am merely pointing out a fault in your method.  If your method does not take verify the geometry of the base of your triangle, then you are introducing a source of error that you are not accounting for.

[markjo]

To be fair, you never really had a goal. You presented a mathematical statement which was true, and nobody disagreed with.  It was pointed out that depending on the real world application, it might need to be tweaked.  That is it.  Do you agree that your OP is not correct if the observer is standing 3ft from the sighting pole?

My OP is correct.

The stated method is a legitimate means for determining the altitude of an object above the earth if one knows the baseline distance to the object in question.

The only things that were really ever in question about your OP were the location of the observer's eye level and your inability to understand its relevance.

Since it is irrelevant to the stated method, then I suggest you are the one with the disability in this thread.

You cannot provide evidence of your position I have such inability.

Your inability to show the relevance is shown quite clearly here:

Then you present an observer with an unknown eye level 3 feet away from a 10 foot pole that is the very tip of that 1700 mile right triangle.

Eye level does not matter.

Eye level matters if you want it to line up with the object and the top of the 10' pole.

[totallackey]

You are the one supporting a curve exists.

Feel free to quote in this thread where I did this.  I can save you the time though, I never did.

I support no curve because one is not visible to me in performing the observation and the resulting calculations.

So if it is not visible then it does not exist?

But go ahead, noble RE-er...

Provide us the math taking into account the supposed sphericity found in 1700 miles of the mythical ball earth surface...

I am merely pointing out a fault in your method.  If your method does not take verify the geometry of the base of your triangle, then you are introducing a source of error that you are not accounting for.

OF course its verified by observation.

Unless you have visible evidence to the contrary...

And of course, you will offer something unsubstantiated by personal observation.

[Rama Set]

So it’s ok to appeal to an authority when it’s surveying methods, but not ok when it’s geodesy and topography. Wow you have shitty standards. Regardless, this is about your methodology and if you aren’t measuring the datum for your observation to ensure that your triangles are indeed similar, you are introducing sources of error, so your method can’t be used in RL circumstances.

[totallackey]

So it’s ok to appeal to an authority when it’s surveying methods, but not ok when it’s geodesy and topography. Wow you have shitty standards. Regardless, this is about your methodology and if you aren’t measuring the datum for your observation to ensure that your triangles are indeed similar, you are introducing sources of error, so your method can’t be used in RL circumstances.

Real life?

Funny, I did this just the other day.

I checked.

I am real and I was indeed alive at the time.

I have made no appeal to authority. I stated a fact when I wrote that surveyors use this method all the time when solving for unknown elevations and they do not, REPEATING DO NOT take into account any supposed sphericity.

But okay, okay, go ahead and provide the method utilized by your standards.

Demonstrate how the result would be drastically different.

[Rama Set]

So it’s ok to appeal to an authority when it’s surveying methods, but not ok when it’s geodesy and topography. Wow you have shitty standards. Regardless, this is about your methodology and if you aren’t measuring the datum for your observation to ensure that your triangles are indeed similar, you are introducing sources of error, so your method can’t be used in RL circumstances.

Real life?

Funny, I did this just the other day.

I checked.

I am real and I was indeed alive at the time.

I have made no appeal to authority. I stated a fact when I wrote that surveyors use this method all the time when solving for unknown elevations and they do not, REPEATING DO NOT take into account any supposed sphericity.

Which surveyors? They don’t account for the curve of the Earth over any distance? If so, what is your source?

But okay, okay, go ahead and provide the method utilized by your standards.

I don’t know the method for geodetic surveying but surely you are smart enough to know that triangulation doesn’t work on a non-Euclidean plane?

Don’t derail the thread.

Demonstrate how the result would be drastically different.

[totallackey]

So it’s ok to appeal to an authority when it’s surveying methods, but not ok when it’s geodesy and topography. Wow you have shitty standards. Regardless, this is about your methodology and if you aren’t measuring the datum for your observation to ensure that your triangles are indeed similar, you are introducing sources of error, so your method can’t be used in RL circumstances.

Real life?

Funny, I did this just the other day.

I checked.

I am real and I was indeed alive at the time.

I have made no appeal to authority. I stated a fact when I wrote that surveyors use this method all the time when solving for unknown elevations and they do not, REPEATING DO NOT take into account any supposed sphericity.

Which surveyors? They don’t account for the curve of the Earth over any distance? If so, what is your source?

Don't try and switch this around...

You brought up the issue so name one that has or does.

But okay, okay, go ahead and provide the method utilized by your standards.

I don’t know the method for geodetic surveying but surely you are smart enough to know that triangulation doesn’t work on a non-Euclidean plane?

Don’t derail the thread.

I'm not derailing the thread.

I started the thread.

You are the one derailing it with your mythical sphericity claims.

Demonstrate how the result would be drastically different.

Still waiting for you to do it...

You are the one subscribing to the issue of sphericity so go ahead and figure it out.