The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Pete Svarrior on March 01, 2015, 03:25:10 PM
-
I imagine you are much like Hampden when he lost to Wallace.
Hampden never lost to Wallace. The wager was deemed invalid by a court of law. Please do not present your interpretations of who you think might have won when it was authoritatively settled. Even Christine Garwood's hit piece, Flat Earth: the History of an Infamous Idea managed to get this right. I'd encourage you to read at least chapters 3 and 4 before making further libellous remarks about this wager.
Carpenter, the original referee of the debt that both gentlemen agreed on confiding in, had no doubt that the result was in Hampden's favour. Wallace threw a complete shit-fit, which led to many wonderful things such as threatening Carpenter and eventually calling the cops on him to forcibly remove him out of his house. Wallace was so desperate to turn the tables that he changed referees mid-wager to his friend and sports magazine editor, Walsh (n.b. this is not to say that Carpenter had better credentials himself). During the 1876 court case, Walsh was so desperate to defend his illegal actions that he tried to rebrand the entire event as "not a wager". Also, since Walsh and Wallace had previously agreed on Walsh's indemnity, the cost of the whole farce fell on Wallace directly, putting him at a net loss even after all the libel suits he won against Hampden.
It's a sad story, but both men struggled with financial difficulties at the time, so it's no surprise that Wallace would resort to petty cheating (keep in mind that £500 was a very substantial sum of money at the time).
-
It's a sad story, but both men struggled with financial difficulties at the time, so it's no surprise that Wallace would resort to petty cheating (keep in mind that £500 was a very substantial sum of money at the time).
First of all, Hampden shouldn't have issued a challenge that he couldn't afford to lose. Secondly, Hampden wasn't "struggling with financial difficulties at the time". He gave all of his assets to a family member so that the courts couldn't seize them.
-
I imagine you are much like Hampden when he lost to Wallace.
Hampden never lost to Wallace. ...
Didn't Hampden lose the libel case that Wallace brought?
Okay, here we go. Apologies for the poor quality, that's what I got from The Times' archive:
(http://i.omgomg.eu/times_hampden2)
You can read the whole page here (http://i.omgomg.eu/times_hampden). I'll update our Wiki and the library at some point soon.
-
First of all, Hampden shouldn't have issued a challenge that he couldn't afford to lose.
Agreed, although the same could be said about Wallace, who got the short end of the stick in the end.
Secondly, Hampden wasn't "struggling with financial difficulties at the time". He gave all of his assets to a family member so that the courts couldn't seize them.
His assets weren't exactly sizeable to begin with. He was already unable to pay numerous fines or cover court costs prior to his declaration of bankruptcy.
Didn't Hampden lose the libel case that Wallace brought?
I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.
-
I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.
Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.
-
I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.
Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.
No, the bet was null and void as decided by a court. Hampden did not lose.
I always find it staggering that this experiment has been done 3 times. Once by Rowbotham, once by Hamden and Wallace, and once by Lady Blount. And twice the earth was proved flat and once the result was declared null and void because the arbitrator was in cahoots with the round earthers. And yet its always the Wallace/Hampden experiment round earthers clutch at as a proof of rotundity. Strikes me as very desperate.
-
I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.
Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.
No, the bet was null and void as decided by a court. Hampden did not lose.
I always find it staggering that this experiment has been done 3 times. Once by Rowbotham, once by Hamden and Wallace, and once by Lady Blount. And twice the earth was proved flat and once the result was declared null and void because the arbitrator was in cahoots with the round earthers. And yet its always the Wallace/Hampden experiment round earthers clutch at as a proof of rotundity. Strikes me as very desperate.
There are other ways to "lose" than to "lose a bet". Do pay attention.
Tell you what: Let's run the experiment again, right now. From the CN Tower Observation Deck toward the City of Niagara Falls, New York, US:
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 (http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g155019-d155483-i32613999-CN_Tower-Toronto_Ontario.html)
(http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/f1/a6/6f/lake-ontario-and-niagara.jpg)
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.
Hampden loses again since you can't see the base of the buildings in New York.
-
I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.
Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.
No, the bet was null and void as decided by a court. Hampden did not lose.
I always find it staggering that this experiment has been done 3 times. Once by Rowbotham, once by Hamden and Wallace, and once by Lady Blount. And twice the earth was proved flat and once the result was declared null and void because the arbitrator was in cahoots with the round earthers. And yet its always the Wallace/Hampden experiment round earthers clutch at as a proof of rotundity. Strikes me as very desperate.
There are other ways to "lose" than to "lose a bet". Do pay attention.
Tell you what: Let's run the experiment again, right now. From the CN Tower Observation Deck toward the City of Niagara Falls, New York, US:
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 (http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g155019-d155483-i32613999-CN_Tower-Toronto_Ontario.html)
(http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/f1/a6/6f/lake-ontario-and-niagara.jpg)
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.
Hampden loses again since you can't see the base of the buildings in New York.
Of course you can't see the base. It is the middle of the day. Its hot and sunny.
When it is hot, water from the sea evaporates. And this causes localised regions of low pressure. And that causes ocean swell. The air pressure is less so the water bulges.
(http://www.saltwaterexperience.co.uk/media/images/tutorials/weather/weather1.jpg)
That's why they did it on a canal, Dummy.
It is obvious this is happening in this picture because the little clouds are forming over the sea. And the final proof the earth isn't round ... do the buildings in that picture rise straight up, or do they appear to be leaning away from you as they should on a round earth? Straight up. Thanks for helping to prove the earth is flat with your image.
-
Of course you can't see the base. It is the middle of the day. Its hot and sunny.
When it is hot, water from the sea evaporates. And this causes localised regions of low pressure. And that causes ocean swell. The air pressure is less so the water bulges.
(http://www.saltwaterexperience.co.uk/media/images/tutorials/weather/weather1.jpg)
That's why they did it on a canal, Dummy.
Since the canal flows and has a gradient, it was a poor choice. Since Lake Ontario is not an ocean, your "low-pressure" claim is faulty. Even if Lake Ontario were an ocean, you'd still need to document several facets, including that the effect exists and is large enough to explain your outlandish claim.
Oh, and water from the sea evaporates even at night.
Oh, and for the water to rise would require that the surrounding air would not move to compensate, which it would. It's called wind.
-
Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy.
*sigh* I see that the concept of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" is thoroughly lost on you.
Presumably the analogy was to Hampden's behaviour after having been robbed of his wager money (namely, his relentless attacks on Wallace), rather than his passive condition of being in jail - that's hardly a reaction. That said, I'm not sure why you consider yourself an authority on what Rama had to say. I made an assumption and responded according to it. If Rama feels that I misunderstood him, I'm sure he'll correct me without you introducing your own assumptions to the bag.
I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds.
700*, but I'm not sure why you think your perception of the severity of various punishments is of mine or anyone else's interest in the first place.
-
It was and still is a drainage canal with sluices. Ergo, there is no gradient and no flow when the gates are shut. It is a canal, not a river.
A large lake will have the same localised low pressure in warm weather. In fact more so as the area itself is very localised.
Yes, it does evaporate at night, so that covers night pics too. Thanks. It is the air pressure across the region you are looking that you need to consider when you have water. If the pressure is not equal, the water will bulge ... obviously.
Basic fluid dynamics.
(http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys136/modules/m1/images/fig4.gif)
And finally wind is a balancing of that, but wind suffers from friction meaning not all places are equal at the same time. You can see that from any weather chart you like.
(http://iblog.stjschool.org/math20a/files/2009/09/weather_map.png)
-
It was and still is a drainage canal with sluices. Ergo, there is no gradient and no flow when the gates are shut. It is a canal, not a river.
A large lake will have the same localised low pressure in warm weather. In fact more so as the area itself is very localised.
Yes, it does evaporate at night, so that covers night pics too. Thanks. It is the air pressure across the region you are looking that you need to consider when you have water. If the pressure is not equal, the water will bulge ... obviously.
Basic fluid dynamics.
(http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys136/modules/m1/images/fig4.gif)
And finally wind is a balancing of that, but wind suffers from friction meaning not all places are equal at the same time. You can see that from any weather chart you like.
(http://iblog.stjschool.org/math20a/files/2009/09/weather_map.png)
Tell us how you determined that the sluices were perfectly tight and closed during the experiment please. Maybe you're just guessing again.
Tell us how you determined that the effect was happening and to the extent you claim in the photo please.
Tell us how you determined that the friction happened to sustain the low pressure where and when you claim.
Or you suggesting that there are tubes over Lake Ontario that prevent equalizing pressure in many directions at once?
-
Tell me why you think they'd leave them open, and why that would make a curved bulge even if they weren't? In a flat earth you'd expect and straight diagonal line of surface water, you still need a bulge on a round earth. And there isn't one. Also I read Wallace's account and they definitely shut the gates. It is in his autobiography so you can check that for yourself.
In the photo, I can see the clouds forming over the lake. So I know the lake is evaporating. I can also see its a warm day from the haze in front of the buildings.
Tell you what about friction? Wind would not exist if all places have the same pressure at once. I'll bet there was a nice breeze on the day the photo was taken. Where land meets water you often get a breeze giving rise to the meteorological terms 'sea breeze' and the reverse 'land breeze'. Both very googlable. Knock yourself out.
Tubes? Are you retarted? Read about localised meteorology and come back. This is the very basics of how weather works.
-
Tell me why you think they'd leave them open, and why that would make a curved bulge even if they weren't? In a flat earth you'd expect and straight diagonal line of surface water, you still need a bulge on a round earth. And there isn't one. Also I read Wallace's account and they definitely shut the gates. It is in his autobiography so you can check that for yourself.
In the photo, I can see the clouds forming over the lake. So I know the lake is evaporating. I can also see its a warm day from the haze in front of the buildings.
Tell you what about friction? The wind would not exist if all places have the same pressure at once. I'll bet there was a nice breeze on the day the photo was taken. Where land meets water you often get a breeze giving rise to the meteorological terms 'sea breeze' and the reverse 'land breeze'. Both very googlable. Knock yourself out.
Tubes? Are you retarted? Read about localised meteorology and come back. This is the very basics of how weather works.
So you don't know. You only assume. I figured as much. No, RET allows for flowing bodies of water not to bulge. Do provide the source of Wallace's account about shutting the gates and how long they did so. Did they allow enough time? Were the sluices perfectly tight?
So there would be winds to dissipate the pressure variances and your outlandish claim of the sufficient effect. I figured as much.
So why do you provide drawings to make your outlandish claims replete with tubes?
-
Your last post is all requests and questions.
The only statement you made about flowing bodies not curving on a round earth is demonstrably wrong. Consider the river Nile. A flowing body over thousands of miles. Are you saying it does not bend with the curvature of the earth? You are being particularly stupid today. A canal or river that flows over 6 miles should still curve, flowing has nothing to do with it, another red herring.
You still haven't read about weather so I'll ignore your protesting about wind. Unequal pressure = wind. It is not instantaneous else we'd be hit by light speed gushes of wind at every discrepancy of pressure. And that doesn't happen, so unequal pressures prevail until the wind equals the pressure and the wind ceases. If it is windy, the pressure is unequal. Wind always travels from high pressure to low.
My drawings of tubes show how pressure effects water levels. Google manometer to find out how they work and the science behind it. Go on, google that one. You'll stop asking questions that show your education ceased at high school.
-
Your last post is all requests and questions.
The only statement you made about flowing bodies not curving on a round earth is demonstrably wrong. Consider the river Nile. A flowing body over thousands of miles. Are you saying it does not bend with the curvature of the earth? You are being particularly stupid today. A canal or river that flows over 6 miles should still curve, flowing has nothing to do with it, another red herring.
You still haven't read about weather so I'll ignore your protesting about wind. Unequal pressure = wind. It is not instantaneous else we'd be hit by light speed gushes of wind at every discrepancy of pressure. And that doesn't happen, so unequal pressures prevail until the wind equals the pressure and the wind ceases. If it is windy, the pressure is unequal. Wind always travels from high pressure to low.
My drawings of tubes show how pressure effects water levels. Google manometer to find out how they work and the science behind it. Go on, google that one. You'll stop asking questions that show your education ceased at high school.
Well, I guess my job here is done. You've demonstrated even to the casual reader of this thread your failure.
No, a flowing body of water does not follow the curvature of the RE. Flowing water follows the lay of the land over which it flows.
Try this thought experiment. Consider that you're floating in the Niagara River just a few inches from the Falls. Your eyes are at the water level. When you look downriver you do not see water blocking your view beyond the edge. Now consider that you're floating just after the Falls with again your eyes at water level. When you look upriver, you see water blocking your view.
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
Again, please do document that the effect you claim of low-pressure would cause the "hiding" of the lower parts of the City of Niagara Falls.
-
I made an assumption and responded according to it. If Rama feels that I misunderstood him, I'm sure he'll correct me without you introducing your own assumptions to the bag.
Here's a concept you might consider: Ask for clarification before making an assumption and accusing someone of a crime. You know, consider ethics.
-
I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.
Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.
No, the bet was null and void as decided by a court. Hampden did not lose.
I always find it staggering that this experiment has been done 3 times. Once by Rowbotham, once by Hamden and Wallace, and once by Lady Blount.
And then there are geodetic surveys.
...once the result was declared null and void because the arbitrator was in cahoots with the round earthers.
Inocrrect for the same reasons it is wrong every time you make this assertion.
And yet its always the Wallace/Hampden experiment round earthers clutch at as a proof of rotundity. Strikes me as very desperate.
It was the only time someone with any sort of expertise performed the experiment. Rowbotham's and Blount's were both subject to systemic errors due to temperature gradients.
-
I made an assumption and responded according to it. If Rama feels that I misunderstood him, I'm sure he'll correct me without you introducing your own assumptions to the bag.
Here's a concept you might consider: Ask for clarification before making an assumption and accusing someone of a crime. You know, consider ethics.
Although I was not libelous since losing a bet does not really impugn Hampden's reputation, Pizzaa was pretty much correct in calling me out. It has motivated me to order a copy of Garwood's book though. I will see if I can get it through the library first.
-
It has motivated me to order a copy of Garwood's book though. I will see if I can get it through the library first.
I still have an extra copy back from when Amazon messed up my order. I don't know how practical it would be for me to mail it across the ocean, but if you'd like a free copy, I'd be happy to oblige.
I made an assumption and responded according to it. If Rama feels that I misunderstood him, I'm sure he'll correct me without you introducing your own assumptions to the bag.
Here's a concept you might consider: Ask for clarification before making an assumption and accusing someone of a crime. You know, consider ethics.
You don't take yourself very seriously these days. I almost liked you more when you actually tried.
Almost.
-
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?
I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
-
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?
I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
It has been pointed out, many times, that the Nile is virtually flat wrt a datum that follows the curvature of the Earth.
-
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?
I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
So you can't answer the simple challenge: Find a source that argues your side that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth. This is an inherent part of your outlandish argument. You have claimed it without any support. You have ignored that it's not true at given locations, such as the Falls. You fail.
-
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?
I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
So you can't answer the simple challenge: Find a source that argues your side that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth. This is an inherent part of your outlandish argument. You have claimed it without any support. You have ignored that it's not true at given locations, such as the Falls. You fail.
I did. the River Nile is my example. It flows, it should follow the curvature of the earth or jut out into space. I'm at the point where I feel our respective IQs are too far apart for either of us to enjoy a debate so I'm going to let the other FErs entertain you from now on.
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?
I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
It has been pointed out, many times, that the Nile is virtually flat wrt a datum that follows the curvature of the Earth.
At least you get the basic premise. Please explain to Gulliver if you have more patience than me.
I did a whole thread on the Nile and the gradient proves the Nile cannot be curving with earth, because a gradient itself is a flat earth concept (triangles). When you apply RET to it, the gradient is less than the curvature of earth and it appears the Nile would flow towards its own middle from both ends. Its a cool thought experiment if nothing else. Play with the numbers. The least you will learn is all gradients are based on a flat earth, and that itself is interesting.
-
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?
I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
So you can't answer the simple challenge: Find a source that argues your side that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth. This is an inherent part of your outlandish argument. You have claimed it without any support. You have ignored that it's not true at given locations, such as the Falls. You fail.
I did. the River Nile is my example. It flows, it should follow the curvature of the earth or jut out into space. I'm at the point where I feel our respective IQs are too far apart for either of us to enjoy a debate so I'm going to let the other FErs entertain you from now on.
Again, please provide your source. And do stop the personal attacks.
-
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?
I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
So you can't answer the simple challenge: Find a source that argues your side that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth. This is an inherent part of your outlandish argument. You have claimed it without any support. You have ignored that it's not true at given locations, such as the Falls. You fail.
I did. the River Nile is my example. It flows, it should follow the curvature of the earth or jut out into space. I'm at the point where I feel our respective IQs are too far apart for either of us to enjoy a debate so I'm going to let the other FErs entertain you from now on.
Again, please provide your source. And do stop the personal attacks.
No, we're done. I don't need to take orders from you.
-
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?
I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
So you can't answer the simple challenge: Find a source that argues your side that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth. This is an inherent part of your outlandish argument. You have claimed it without any support. You have ignored that it's not true at given locations, such as the Falls. You fail.
I did. the River Nile is my example. It flows, it should follow the curvature of the earth or jut out into space. I'm at the point where I feel our respective IQs are too far apart for either of us to enjoy a debate so I'm going to let the other FErs entertain you from now on.
Again, please provide your source. And do stop the personal attacks.
No, we're done. I don't need to take orders from you.
Then we're left to conclude that you're running away from backing up your outlandish claims, again. I never expected better from you.
-
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?
I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
So you can't answer the simple challenge: Find a source that argues your side that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth. This is an inherent part of your outlandish argument. You have claimed it without any support. You have ignored that it's not true at given locations, such as the Falls. You fail.
I did. the River Nile is my example. It flows, it should follow the curvature of the earth or jut out into space. I'm at the point where I feel our respective IQs are too far apart for either of us to enjoy a debate so I'm going to let the other FErs entertain you from now on.
There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.
So the River Nile juts out into space? It doesn't follow the curvature of the earth?
I'm done. I gave you the reasons. You being too obtuse to acknowledge them isn't really my problem. I have answered the issue and have not had one counter example of why my assertion is not true.
It has been pointed out, many times, that the Nile is virtually flat wrt a datum that follows the curvature of the Earth.
At least you get the basic premise. Please explain to Gulliver if you have more patience than me.
I did a whole thread on the Nile and the gradient proves the Nile cannot be curving with earth, because a gradient itself is a flat earth concept (triangles). When you apply RET to it, the gradient is less than the curvature of earth and it appears the Nile would flow towards its own middle from both ends. Its a cool thought experiment if nothing else. Play with the numbers. The least you will learn is all gradients are based on a flat earth, and that itself is interesting.
I tend to disagree and I am not sure why you would contend that a gradient can only exist on a flat surface. If the slope changes with respect to the datum, whether the datum is flat or curved, you can calculate a gradient. The second definition below appears to be the relevant one:
gra·di·ent
ˈɡrādēənt/
noun
noun: gradient; plural noun: gradients
1.
an inclined part of a road or railway; a slope.
"fail-safe brakes for use on steep gradients"
synonyms: slope, incline, hill, rise, ramp, bank; More
declivity, grade
"the gradient of Miller's Hill Road is less steep than it was fifty years ago"
the degree of a slope.
"the path becomes very rough as the gradient increases"
synonyms: steepness, angle, slant, slope, inclination
"the gradient of the line"
Mathematics
the degree of steepness of a graph at any point.
2.
Physics
an increase or decrease in the magnitude of a property (e.g., temperature, pressure, or concentration) observed in passing from one point or moment to another.
the rate of a gradient change.
Mathematics
the vector formed by the operator ∇ acting on a scalar function at a given point in a scalar field.
-
Gradient is calculated as change in distance over change in height.
(http://www.mathsisfun.com/images/gradient0.gif)
You will notice x is always a straight line in gradient calcs. It doesn't curve. Once it becomes a curve, the value for x increases and changes the value of x/y. You can get very odd numbers over long distances with shallow gradients ... like the Nile.
-
Gradient is calculated as change in distance over change in height.
(http://www.mathsisfun.com/images/gradient0.gif)
You will notice x is always a straight line in gradient calcs. It doesn't curve. Once it becomes a curve, the value for x increases and changes the value of x/y. You can get very odd numbers over long distances with shallow gradients ... like the Nile.
Yes, but that is how you calculate it on a flat-surface. If the surface is curved you have to do something more like this (http://www.mathsrevision.net/gcse-maths-revision/algebra/gradients-and-graphs):
(http://revisionworld.com/sites/revisionworld.com/files/imce/gradient2.gif)
Where the gradient, obviously would change from point to point, so you take the tangent at that point and calculate the gradient as you mentioned above.
-
Thork, please. You can't simultaneously make threads about how others apparently hurt our cause (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2459.0) and then make posts like this. Your ignorance of high school maths terminology is no excuse here.
-
On a round earth the gradient shouldn't change from point to point because the curve should be constant and also the gradient can be. And gradients are not worked out using tangents.
Thork, please. You can't simultaneously make threads about how others apparently hurt our cause (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2459.0) and then make posts like this. Your ignorance of high school maths terminology is no excuse here.
Posts like what? Gradients are flat earth maths. They aren't worked out with tangents. Rise over run. Not with tangents. Find a hill. It'll say something like 1:8.
-
On a round earth the gradient shouldn't change from point to point because the curve should be constant and also the gradient can be. And gradients are not worked out using tangents.
Thork, please. You can't simultaneously make threads about how others apparently hurt our cause (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2459.0) and then make posts like this. Your ignorance of high school maths terminology is no excuse here.
Posts like what? Gradients are flat earth maths. They aren't worked out with tangents. Rise over run. Not with tangents. Find a hill. It'll say something like 1:8.
I recommend you have a look at what I posted and reconsider. It is a pretty open and shut case.
-
No, you showed me how to calculate the gradient of a curve as someone might do if they wanted to integrate a graph.
I'm saying, when people actually calculate gradients for real world scenarios, they never correct for curvature. Find a single example where they do.
http://www.wyre.gov.uk/info/200134/advice_on_building_work/166/basic_guide_to_calculating_falls_and_gradients_for_drainage
Flat earth all the way.
-
Something interesting for Pizaaplanet and Rama
Please note: this is for two points on a projection (plane surface) and does not take into account either the Earth's curvature or local or line scale factor.
From the people who produce ordnance survey maps from which gradients are derived using contour lines. And they tell you their maps do not account for earth's curvature.
-
Something interesting for Pizaaplanet and Rama
Please note: this is for two points on a projection (plane surface) and does not take into account either the Earth's curvature or local or line scale factor.
From the people who produce ordnance survey maps from which gradients are derived using contour lines. And they tell you their maps do not account for earth's curvature.
You realize in your own quote it says that this method is used for a projection (plane surface). Did you bother to ask yourself what it was a projection of? Obviously you would not need to account for curvature on a 2-dimensional projection, but you also would not count on it for extremely precise results; it gets you in the ballpark though. That being said, geodetic surveys most definitely do take in to account the curvature of the Earth.
No, you showed me how to calculate the gradient of a curve as someone might do if they wanted to integrate a graph.
I'm saying, when people actually calculate gradients for real world scenarios, they never correct for curvature. Find a single example where they do.
http://www.wyre.gov.uk/info/200134/advice_on_building_work/166/basic_guide_to_calculating_falls_and_gradients_for_drainage
Flat earth all the way.
Do you have an example of this method being used to calculate a distance where curvature would be relevant? Curvature over a 50m span is negligible and any piping system can likely flex to accomodate it.
-
Something interesting for Pizaaplanet and Rama
Please note: this is for two points on a projection (plane surface) and does not take into account either the Earth's curvature or local or line scale factor.
From the people who produce ordnance survey maps from which gradients are derived using contour lines. And they tell you their maps do not account for earth's curvature.
You realize in your own quote it says that this method is used for a projection (plane surface). Did you bother to ask yourself what it was a projection of? Obviously you would not need to account for curvature on a 2-dimensional projection, but you also would not count on it for extremely precise results; it gets you in the ballpark though. That being said, geodetic surveys most definitely do take in to account the curvature of the Earth.
Not at all. OS maps do not take into account earth curvature. The very grid system they use for coordinates is exactly that. A grid. It does not warp at all. The lines on it do not match long lat of a sphere. And yet you can piece together multiple maps because it is designed to be done like that.
(http://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/map_formulae/simple_os/images/grid_letters.png)
The Ordnance Survey divides the country into squares of side 100 km. Each square is identified by a pair of letters, as shown in the diagram. Within each square, the easting and northing are indicated decimally, with the number of figures depending on the accuracy required. The easting is always written first.
Note: The map projection used by the Ordnance Survey does not distort angles. Hence the angle on the ground between two lines will be exactly equal to the difference between their geodesic azimuths at the crossing point.
And yet these are used for navigation. there is no distortion in angles and no distortion in distance.
-
Something interesting for Pizaaplanet and Rama
Please note: this is for two points on a projection (plane surface) and does not take into account either the Earth's curvature or local or line scale factor.
From the people who produce ordnance survey maps from which gradients are derived using contour lines. And they tell you their maps do not account for earth's curvature.
You realize in your own quote it says that this method is used for a projection (plane surface). Did you bother to ask yourself what it was a projection of? Obviously you would not need to account for curvature on a 2-dimensional projection, but you also would not count on it for extremely precise results; it gets you in the ballpark though. That being said, geodetic surveys most definitely do take in to account the curvature of the Earth.
Not at all. OS maps do not take into account earth curvature. The very grid system they use for coordinates is exactly that. A grid. It does not warp at all. The lines on it do not match long lat of a sphere. And yet you can piece together multiple maps because it is designed to be done like that.
(http://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/map_formulae/simple_os/images/grid_letters.png)
And yet these are used for navigation. there is no distortion in angles and no distortion in distance.
So can I assume because you have dropped gradients you have conceded the point?
How do you know that map has no distortion? How much distortion would you expect there to be on the RE view?
-
No, you changed the subject. I guessed you gave up.
I would expect there to be a distortion as below
(http://i58.tinypic.com/6z31uq.png)
There is no grid adjustment at all.
-
No, you changed the subject. I guessed you gave up.
Don't be a Thork.
I would expect there to be a distortion as below
There is no grid adjustment at all.
What? There is no grid adjustment where? The map you posted is of how large an area? How does it compare with this completely contextless diagram above? Don't you think that the fact that there are scale-factor issues shows that these issues are considered in relevant cases?
Amazingly, a quick search of "scale factor issues map projection" (no quotes in the search) brought up as the first result a document (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scsi.ie%2Fdocuments%2Fview%3Fid%3D458&ei=nM_1VKKmLoSVNpyGhNAN&usg=AFQjCNHTq7YaF2d-p335w3T_HFqtHiiI7g&sig2=oa0UTkuoxJG5mwgHtNLP3w&bvm=bv.87269000,d.eXY&cad=rja) detailing issues with scale factor and the curvature of the Earth. You know what the second question in the FAQ is, after "Are you an architect, engineer, developer or builder"? "Why is the distance I measure on the ground not the same as the distance that I measure on off my map?" Answer: "The most likely cause is that the difference is due to the effect of the projection scale factor."
The document then goes on to reference the diagram you posted, discusses issues with map projections and states that the error between map and reality ranges "between zero and 4cms every 100m". Sounds like a small error like that could be easily corrected for while navigating by using the sun, a compass, landmarks, anything really.
So here we go again. You reached a dead-end in showing that gradients only apply to flat surfaces. You could not show that gradients are not used in real-life. You failed at showing the maps do not account for curvature as well.
So now that that is done and dusted I suppose this thread can get back on track, whatever that track is.
-
No. I was never given a real world example of any gradient calculation with a curved earth. Still waiting. Will continue to wait.
And we have 3 North's. Magnetic North, Grid North and True North. However the only one of those you don't use to navigate is the round earth abomination True North.
-
No. I was never given a real world example of any gradient calculation with a curved earth. Still waiting. Will continue to wait.
Not for long!
I did find a graph of nile elevation vs distance, so feel free to calculate the gradient at any point as was discussed above:
(http://www.yare.org/brian/books/AdamsWY/p29f6.jpg)
Note that in geography, elevation is defined as:
elevation - (1)The distance of a point above a specified surface of constant potential; the distance is measured along the direction of gravity between the point and the surface.
The surface usually specified is the geoid or an approximation thereto. Mean sea level was long considered a satisfactory approximation to the geoid and therefore suitable for use as a reference surface. It is now known that mean sea level can differ from the geoid by up to a meter but the exact difference is difficult to determine. The terms height and level are frequently used as synonyms for elevation. In geodesy, height also refers to the distance above an ellipsoid; it is used in this sense in this glossary, except where custom has established a different usage. "Level" has such a variety of meanings that it is best not to use the term to mean elevation.
It is evident that you can derive the gradient at any point from this graph.
And we have 3 North's. Magnetic North, Grid North and True North. However the only one of those you don't use to navigate is the round earth abomination True North.
Red Herring.
-
No. I was never given a real world example of any gradient calculation with a curved earth. Still waiting. Will continue to wait.
And we have 3 North's. Magnetic North, Grid North and True North. However the only one of those you don't use to navigate is the round earth abomination True North.
Incorrect.
The grid lines on Ordnance Survey maps divide the UK into one-kilometre squares, east of an imaginary zero point in the Atlantic Ocean, west of Cornwall. The grid lines point to a Grid North, varying slightly from True North. This variation is smallest along the central meridian (north-south line) of the map, and greatest at the map edges. The difference between grid north and true north is very small and can be ignored for most navigation purposes. The difference exists because the correspondence between a flat map and the round Earth is necessarily imperfect.