[TayIrving]

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.

That is completely invalid and just a waste of your time and my time. You can use "because the earth is flat" as evidence for the earth being flat. That is just dumb and I'm sure you know it.

[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.

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.

Are you saying the curvature of the earth can be detected on such a small scale?

[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.

I'm saying the average curvature of the earth could very roughly be dictated because it's slightly elongated but still roughly spherical. But still enough to prove it is round and not flat which is really the main point I'm trying to get across

Are you saying the curvature of the earth can be detected on such a small scale?

[Tau]

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.

Okay, but you aren't proving anything. You're creating a hypothetical situation in which you could prove the Earth is round, but you are not proving that the Earth is round. You're proposing a experiment that is famous for being impossible to perform. Unless you want to try it and document your results, there's not much I can do for you.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

It's really starting to sound like your question has nothing to do with any model of the Earth...

[TayIrving]

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.

It's really starting to sound like your question has nothing to do with any model of the Earth...

and

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.

It's really starting to sound like your question has nothing to do with any model of the Earth...

I am fully aware that my question isn't going to give you the shape of the earth. But for goodness sake it is good enough and close enough to tell you that the world is round and I don't see how you don't see it.

If you want to take a dig at the practicality of it, feel free but we are in the future - we have drones, we have self driving cares. Get one of them to do it so you don't have to, because by the looks of things you don't do experiments.

[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.

Okay, but you aren't proving anything. You're creating a hypothetical situation in which you could prove the Earth is round, but you are not proving that the Earth is round. You're proposing a experiment that is famous for being impossible to perform. Unless you want to try it and document your results, there's not much I can do for you.

Look at my latest reply, this applies to you too, I am a puny school kid, I am in no position to do experiments like that but theoretically you could fly a drone or what ever is most practical.

[Pete Svarrior]

I am fully aware that my question isn't going to give you the shape of the earth. But for goodness sake it is good enough and close enough to tell you that the world is round and I don't see how you don't see it.

You're talking about a completely hypothetical scenario. If the Earth is a perfect sphere, you're right. If it's not, you're wrong.

Your idea requires the assumption that the Earth is round. If you already made this assumption, you can't use it to make a proof of the positive.

[Rama Set]

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.

Yet, the correction for spherical excess when surveying involves the radius of the Earth. If your scenario were correct then you would expect that this correction would often yield inaccurate results. This is not the case, so it appears that your hypothesis is not correct.

[Pete Svarrior]

If your scenario were correct then you would expect that this correction would often yield inaccurate results. This is not the case

I would need to see some supporting reasoning and evidence for that claim. Bear in mind that no one's claiming that the Earth is perfectly flat. In most cases, it's largely convex or concave.

[Rama Set]

If your scenario were correct then you would expect that this correction would often yield inaccurate results. This is not the case

I would need to see some evidence of that. Bear in mind that no one's claiming that the Earth is perfectly flat. In most cases, it's largely convex or concave.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=diY7AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=spherical+excess+in+surveying&source=bl&ots=jkzLWw2X-Z&sig=fczWhbF5UTRI_q46p9OA3t-Swjo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xmZBVfu_KIyHyASQuoG4Cw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=spherical%20excess%20in%20surveying&f=false

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't see how that addresses my point. Of course there's curvature there to account for. Nobody's disputing that.

[spoon]

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."

Well, this isn't a question.

Also, if you had done a simple search, you would have found several threads on this topic. One thing you would have noticed in these threads is that they are generally pretty short. This is because there isn't much ground to be made by either side of the debate by discussing it.

[xasop]

That is completely invalid and just a waste of your time and my time. You can use "because the earth is flat" as evidence for the earth being flat. That is just dumb and I'm sure you know it.

I'm not trying to prove that the Earth is flat. All I'm saying is that because the Earth is flat, your thought experiment does not apply to it.

[Rama Set]

I don't see how that addresses my point. Of course there's curvature there to account for. Nobody's disputing that.

You asked for some evidence that the radius of the Earth was involved in the correction for curvature.  I did that.  You're welcome.

[Pete Svarrior]

You asked for some evidence that the radius of the Earth was involved in the correction for curvature.  I did that.  You're welcome.

No, I asked for evidence that this is practically necessary in the real world (note that I cut off your quote at "this is not the case", not sooner, not later. Context, context, context.). I particularly like you injecting the insinuation that I said anything about the Earth's radius in this conversation. I did not do that, and I'd appreciate it if you took your strawmen elsewhere.

The OP is clearly confused about the difference between his thought experiment and something that can actually shed light on the real world, and explaining that to him is much more important than your petty bickering.

[Rama Set]

You asked for some evidence that the radius of the Earth was involved in the correction for curvature.  I did that.  You're welcome.

No, I asked for evidence that this is practically necessary in the real world (note that I cut off your quote at "this is not the case", not sooner, not later. Context, context, context.). I particularly like you injecting the insinuation that I said anything about the Earth's radius in this conversation. I did not do that, and I'd appreciate it if you took your strawmen elsewhere.

The OP is clearly confused about the difference between his thought experiment and something that can actually shed light on the real world, and explaining that to him is much more important than your petty bickering.

Well you get what you asked for. If don't ask for what you specifically want, you don't get it. If you want something more specific please communicate better instead of painting it as my failing. I also never bickered, that was you. Thanks very much.

[Pete Svarrior]

Well you get what you asked for. If don't ask for what you specifically want, you don't get it. If you want something more specific please communicate better instead of painting it as my failing. I also never bickered, that was you. Thanks very much.

What I specifically want is for you to refrain from off-topic posting in this thread. A warning to this effect will follow.

[surfrowen]

The "triangle" thing is a good argument for proving the earth is round, there is a flaw in it though.  WHen you see it demonstrated by someone holding a styrofoam ball or a basketball or some other sphere...they usually 1) start at the top of the sphere, 2) go down to the equitorial line of the sphere (a distance of 1/4 circumference), and then 3) turn 90 degrees to move along the equatorial line a distance exactly 1/4 circumference, and then 4) turn 90degrees to end up back at the starting point at the north pole.   This does indeed work on a sphere but only if you use the precise distance of 1/4 circumference for each line.  use more or less than this and you will not end up back at the beginning.  This is why if you go in your back yard and walk 10 ft., turn 90 degrees and walk 10 feet, then turn another 90 degrees and walk ten feet you will not end up at the starting point...because you did not use a distance each time of 1/4 the supposed circumference of the earth.

In other words, the only way to prove/disprove this theory on earth is to carry out the experiment by traveling 1/4 the circumference of the earth at each 90 degree turn.  No one has ever made this journey.  Until that happens, the triangle explanation is unproven.

[CableDawg]

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.

Do you understand the concept of scaling an experiment?

Say the size of a large sphere is 20,000 units and it spins at 1,000 units per hour.

To scale that experiment down, let's say 1/10 scale, the smaller (scale) sphere would be 2,000 units and the spin would be 100 units per hour.

From the original post the distance traveled would also scale down proportionately to 1,000 units.

This is the way scale works.  All parameters are treated to the same scale factor.  Your example above is not equivalent to scale modeling.