#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2015, 03:12:41 AM »
Actually, I mistyped it in the description, but good catch. I'll fix that. Reguardless, why do you suppose that the height of the observation deck does not include the tower's foundation
Because of the international standard as chronicled here:
[For buildings] Height is measured from the sidewalk of the main entrance to the structural top of the building including penthouse and tower.

Oh, and while you're correcting your OP, please add the height of the observer, say 5 feet.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Pongo

• Most Educated Flat-Earther
• Planar Moderator
• 759
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2015, 03:36:27 AM »
So you want the underground parts added?  Your arguments are insane. I understand that you can't see that because, by definition, you cannot see your own insanity. It's always reassuring when the round-earthers come up with crap like this as their primary arguments. Makes me believe that my dream of seeing flat-earth theory widely accepted in my lifetime is possible.

Also, I added 6 feet for the observer in the original calculation. I didn't mention it because it effects the outcome so slightly that only someone who is insane would bring it up.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2015, 03:39:28 AM »
So you want the underground parts added?  Your arguments are insane. I understand that you can't see that because, by definition, you cannot see your own insanity. It's always reassuring when the round-earthers come up with crap like this as their primary arguments. Makes me believe that my dream of seeing flat-earth theory widely accepted in my lifetime is possible.

Also, I added 6 feet for the observer in the original calculation. I didn't mention it because it effects the outcome so slightly that only someone who is insane would bring it up.
So here's the correct diagram. Now apply your math correctly and you'll see where your went wrong. Happy learning.

Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Pongo

• Most Educated Flat-Earther
• Planar Moderator
• 759
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2015, 03:48:56 AM »
Why aren't you accounting for the foundation of the tower? I was told that was super necessary...

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2015, 03:50:50 AM »
Why aren't you accounting for the foundation of the tower? I was told that was super necessary...
I did. It's in the altitude of the base of the tower.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Pongo

• Most Educated Flat-Earther
• Planar Moderator
• 759
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2015, 05:42:27 PM »
Of course, lol. Still, none of this makes the arccosine formula incorrect.

#### Tau

• Zetetic Council Member
• 911
• Magistrum Fallaciae
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2015, 06:09:36 PM »
Are you trying to be pedantic about the horizon and distance of the sun on the round-earth model? That's not what this thread is about.
This thread is about how far you can see from the observation deck of the CN Tower. You claim that your formula determines that one can never in RET see more than about 40 miles from the deck.

You fail to consider the height of the target (and the height of the foundation of the tower), assuming incorrectly that the target is on the horizon. The example of the sun at 93 million miles destroys your claim as the formula does not predict that.You fail miserably. Please do try harder.

1) In FET the sun is not 93 million miles away
2) Since we're being pedantic, its not 93 miles away in RET either
3) Given that the Sun is not on the Earth, your argument is irrelevant. Honestly, you're the RE'er in the room. If you're so certain you're obviously right, why do you have to resort to such idiotic arguments?
1) That's irrelevant.
2) Really? See:
The Sun is at an average distance of about 93,000,000 miles (150 million kilometers) away from Earth.
3) Why is the argument irrelevant? It points directly to Pongo's sophomoric error.

So why doesn't Pongo's RET formula predict that an observer on the deck of the CN Tower can see 93 million miles? Well, to answer my own question: because he's using the wrong formula, not considering the height of the target or of the Tower's foundation.

1) This entire argument is irrelevant
2) Nope. It's more like 92,956,000 miles away. Lrn2pedantic
3) No. It doesn't. Pongo's formula only applies to things on the Earth's surface. Obviously. It's about the curvature of the Earth hiding things, not some fundamental law of RET.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2015, 07:22:07 PM »
Of course, lol. Still, none of this makes the arccosine formula incorrect.
Again, you use that formula incorrectly. It does not predict how far one can see on an RET. Please do try harder.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2015, 07:28:40 PM »
...
1) This entire argument is irrelevant
2) Nope. It's more like 92,956,000 miles away. Lrn2pedantic
3) No. It doesn't. Pongo's formula only applies to things on the Earth's surface. Obviously. It's about the curvature of the Earth hiding things, not some fundamental law of RET.
1) You're right. Your argument that FET distances matter in Pongo's proof about RET is indeed irrelevant. Thanks for agreeing.
2) Are you incorrectly claiming that no visible part of the sun is ever 93,000,000 miles from earth? Please do try harder.
3) So since the observation deck is not on the earth's surface, you obvious agree that he's used the wrong formula, right? Why would Pongo have 'h' be a height above the earth's surface, if you were right? Please do try harder.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2015, 09:11:27 PM »
Oh, and just to clarify. The "Niagara Falls" that can be seen from the CN Tower's Observation Deck is just the taller buildings of the City of Niagara Falls. See: http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g155019-d155483-i32613999-CN_Tower-Toronto_Ontario.html

This photo [of from the] CN Tower is courtesy of TripAdvisor

So T is actually much longer. Shall I assume that FEers have had enough debunking of their sophomoric proof of a FE in this thread? Please do try harder.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Thork

##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2015, 09:32:24 PM »
Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"
The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.

Again, because of the pedantry, what do you think h represents in the diagram?
As you said, h is "Height of the observation deck = 1,118 feet", though you mis-typed it as 1128 in your calculation. You really do need to try harder.
It doesn't matter. In order to see 100 miles on a flat earth, you need to be at a height of 6660 feet. In other words if you can see 100 miles from the top of the CN Tower, the earth is flat, case closed.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2015, 09:36:28 PM »
Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"
The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.

Again, because of the pedantry, what do you think h represents in the diagram?
As you said, h is "Height of the observation deck = 1,118 feet", though you mis-typed it as 1128 in your calculation. You really do need to try harder.
It doesn't matter. In order to see 100 miles on a flat earth, you need to be at a height of 6660 feet. In other words if you can see 100 miles from the top of the CN Tower, the earth is flat, case closed.
Wrong. Please read the thread and try harder. There's nothing in RET to say that you can't see 100 miles from a tower of 1000 feet or so. You must consider where you are and where you're looking to predict how far you can see.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Pongo

• Most Educated Flat-Earther
• Planar Moderator
• 759
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2015, 09:43:42 PM »
You don't even plug numbers into your equation! For all you know, it could yield the same results, but we don't know because all you're capable of saying is, "wrong formula," and, "do try harder."  All you can really say is that the observer can see further because the sun is x million miles away (something you've yet to demonstrate). And that's not even the furthest thing you can see in the round-earth model when you take stars into account. When your primary arguments are "nuh uh," and, "the world is round because you can see the sun," you had best rethink your stance.

This, sun-distance argument is so asinine that you not only embarrass yourself, but all of round-earth theory as well.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2015, 09:50:54 PM »
You don't even plug numbers into your equation! For all you know, it could yield the same results, but we don't know because all you're capable of saying is, "wrong formula," and, "do try harder."  All you can really say is that the observer can see further because the sun is x million miles away (something you've yet to demonstrate). And that's not even the furthest thing you can see in the round-earth model when you take stars into account. When your primary arguments are "nuh uh," and, "the world is round because you can see the sun," you had best rethink your stance.

This, sun-distance argument is so asinine that you not only embarrass yourself, but all of round-earth theory as well.
I made only the claim that you're using the wrong formula, not that I had calculated an answer using the right formula. You, not I, made the claim in the OP that you've proven an FE. You have the responsibility to deal with the critique and to try harder to save your proof--or you could whine that I need to do your work for you like you are in your last post.

You build a straw man. I never said 93 million miles was as far as you can see on a RET earth. Please pay attention and try harder.

I have demonstrated that the observer on a RET earth can indeed see 93 million miles. Get over it. Your use of the formula for estimating the distance to the astronomical horizon over a still ocean to determine how far you can see on RET is obviously wrong. You're not even looking over an ocean.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Thork

##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2015, 09:58:00 PM »
Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"
The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.

Again, because of the pedantry, what do you think h represents in the diagram?
As you said, h is "Height of the observation deck = 1,118 feet", though you mis-typed it as 1128 in your calculation. You really do need to try harder.
It doesn't matter. In order to see 100 miles on a flat earth, you need to be at a height of 6660 feet. In other words if you can see 100 miles from the top of the CN Tower, the earth is flat, case closed.
Wrong. Please read the thread and try harder. There's nothing in RET to say that you can't see 100 miles from a tower of 1000 feet or so. You must consider where you are and where you're looking to predict how far you can see.
Erm, you can use any calculator on the internet to tell you how high you must be and how far the horizon will be. Like the one below.
http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

Bellowing wrong in every thread doesn't make us wrong. It just means you can't work out these things for yourself.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2015, 10:00:52 PM »
Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"
The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.

Again, because of the pedantry, what do you think h represents in the diagram?
As you said, h is "Height of the observation deck = 1,118 feet", though you mis-typed it as 1128 in your calculation. You really do need to try harder.
It doesn't matter. In order to see 100 miles on a flat earth, you need to be at a height of 6660 feet. In other words if you can see 100 miles from the top of the CN Tower, the earth is flat, case closed.
Wrong. Please read the thread and try harder. There's nothing in RET to say that you can't see 100 miles from a tower of 1000 feet or so. You must consider where you are and where you're looking to predict how far you can see.
Erm, you can use any calculator on the internet to tell you how high you must be and how far the horizon will be. Like the one below.
http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

Bellowing wrong in every thread doesn't make us wrong. It just means you can't work out these things for yourself.
Again, calculating the distance to the astronomical horizon over a still ocean is not the way to determine how far one can see from the CN Tower Observation Deck. Please pay attention and try harder.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Pongo

• Most Educated Flat-Earther
• Planar Moderator
• 759
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2015, 10:05:35 PM »
Oh, and just to clarify. The "Niagara Falls" that can be seen from the CN Tower's Observation Deck is just the taller buildings of the City of Niagara Falls. See: http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g155019-d155483-i32613999-CN_Tower-Toronto_Ontario.html

This photo [of from the] CN Tower is courtesy of TripAdvisor

So T is actually much longer. Shall I assume that FEers have had enough debunking of their sophomoric proof of a FE in this thread? Please do try harder.

Now your argument is, "because I can see Niagra Falls, then d must be further than 40 miles because the earth is round and I could only see it if d were further than 40 miles."  Shall I pick apart your logic there or can you see the flaws for yourself?

#### Thork

##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2015, 10:12:14 PM »
Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"
The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.

Again, because of the pedantry, what do you think h represents in the diagram?
As you said, h is "Height of the observation deck = 1,118 feet", though you mis-typed it as 1128 in your calculation. You really do need to try harder.
It doesn't matter. In order to see 100 miles on a flat earth, you need to be at a height of 6660 feet. In other words if you can see 100 miles from the top of the CN Tower, the earth is flat, case closed.
Wrong. Please read the thread and try harder. There's nothing in RET to say that you can't see 100 miles from a tower of 1000 feet or so. You must consider where you are and where you're looking to predict how far you can see.
Erm, you can use any calculator on the internet to tell you how high you must be and how far the horizon will be. Like the one below.
http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

Bellowing wrong in every thread doesn't make us wrong. It just means you can't work out these things for yourself.
Again, calculating the distance to the astronomical horizon over a still ocean is not the way to determine how far one can see from the CN Tower Observation Deck. Please pay attention and try harder.
At this point you are offering nothing. You are just whinging. We used round earth maths and the facts don't match the theory. Its all over, FET comes out on top again.

#### Pongo

• Most Educated Flat-Earther
• Planar Moderator
• 759
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2015, 10:13:17 PM »
If you solve for h in my formula and allow d to be 100, as round-earthers claim, you arrive at the same 6660 foot height required that Thork found in his online calculator. So I guess I'm wrong, the formula is wrong, the internet is wrong, trigonometry is wrong, and only Gulliver is right; all alone laughing at us lunatics.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths
« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2015, 10:27:20 PM »
If you solve for h in my formula and allow d to be 100, as round-earthers claim, you arrive at the same 6660 foot height required that Thork found in his online calculator. So I guess I'm wrong, the formula is wrong, the internet is wrong, trigonometry is wrong, and only Gulliver is right; all alone laughing at us lunatics.
Again, you are wrong. The formula does not calculate how far you can see. It's quite obvious.

For the confused... Consider two towers each 1000 feet high on the near shore of a still ocean separated by 50 miles. Does the astronomical horizon formula that Pongo and Thork used consider that the height of both towers which makes it possible to see the top of the other from each? No. both Pongo and Thork fail, again.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.