[Orbisect-64]

Sorry D.R., no more ammunition for you.

[Rayzor]

Here you go,     


I prefer to work in meters an kilometers,   which is  D = 3.86 * sqrt (h)   

Don't forget that if you want the height ( bulge ) at the mid point you divide the drop at the endpoint  by 4.

[Orbisect-64]

Enemies abound

[Orbisect-64]

Satan's emissaries are everywhere - they are right among us - hiding in plain sight.

[Orbisect-64]

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." —Worldly philosophy designed by people with malicious intent

Keep far away from your enemies and have no dealings with them. —God's viewpoint

[Hoppy]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

The first link is a whole book. The second link explains how the drop over distance is figured. The length is squared because the drop is exponential around a circle.

[Orbisect-64]

You don't need to be an enemy to have enemies. Take it from Jesus and God. You just need hateful people bent against you for no reason.

[Rayzor]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

The first link is a whole book. The second link explains how the drop over distance is figured. The length is squared because the drop is exponential around a circle.

From the 1st link: "To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning...."

Kind of like how modern science determines the distance of the sun, right?

To find the distance to the sun, they use the diameter of the sun; But to find the diameter of the sun they first had to have the correct distance; But to find the correct distance they needed the correct diameter. . . Circular reasoning.



The only way to determine the distance of an object of unknown distance, is by triangulation - which is supplied by sunbeams shining on two points of known distance and length. The scientific community didn't use the scientific method. So accusing Rowbotham of not using scientific methods and circular reasoning is more akin to the pot calling the kettle black. I would be willing to conclude that his opponents couldn't understand his methods, and were suppressing the truth they knew to be wrong by their own circular reasoning.

Either way, what is important today is not to look back at all the errors of yesterday; but to acknowledge the advancements made to date. With study since Rowbotham's time, such arguments are proving themselves self evident through rewriting all the science modern science has screwed up through their circular reasoning.


—

Here are several methods for measuring the distance to the sun.

[Orbisect-64]

They still made a lot of assumptions. As shown in the video, they use distant stellar bodies to determine the distance of other stellar bodies. They began without proper angles to begin with. Even the man in the video admits that they didn't know trig back when they "figured this out."

Hence they used a lot of guesses, assumptions, and circular reasoning. They could not know the distance to the moon without knowing the diameter, and they could not know the diameter without knowing the distance. And they could not know the distance to the sun by that method without knowing the correct distance to the moon. And without trig., which they didn't have when they "figured this out," the whole thing is useless.

Using the method of light beams through clouds would be a sure way to accurately figure out the distance of the sun, provided you have accurate markers to where the sun is hitting on the ground, and you are on the equator during the summer in that location. Another method would be to take a measuring tape to the sun, lol. Or maybe if they ever do get past the Van Allen Belts they will read their odometer.

[Orbisect-64]

Enemies can use anything as ammunition against you - no matter how innocent or truthful. Just like it was done to the most innocent man who ever walked the flat earth. I'm no better, and he did promise me that I too would have enemies bent on causing me ruin. How true you have proven his prophecy.

[Hoppy]

A consumer laser would be hard to use for more than a few miles.

[Orbisect-64]

A consumer laser would be hard to use for more than a few miles.

5000mu is pretty strong as lasers go. Plus they are adjustable, so you could tune it for a wide or narrow beam. I'm pretty sure this laser would make it across the span of that bridge. The $371.99 on the other hand is a little steep for me at the moment.







Check out this kid's lasers. He's nuts!

[sakura]

Someone would have to take a powerful laser measurement from one end to the other on a clear day, and prove that the water is flat. I noticed that there are absolutely no perfect side view photographs of the bridge on Google images that we can put a straight line to.

first: didnt someone already do this laser experiment  recently?
second: atmospheric refraction.

[Orbisect-64]

Someone would have to take a powerful laser measurement from one end to the other on a clear day, and prove that the water is flat. I noticed that there are absolutely no perfect side view photographs of the bridge on Google images that we can put a straight line to.

first: didnt someone already do this laser experiment  recently?
second: atmospheric refraction.

The more the merrier they say.

Modern "science" dictates that there be confirmations  . . .  and like scientists are going to do actual work to confirm these findings. LOL!


‚

[huh?]

Do not understand the point of this thread and feel sorry for the engineer.

Can you build a curved bridge -yes
Do you need a powerful laser to survey -no

While that bridge might be a good site to conduct the experiment the Bedford canal also did very well in 1870 without the need for a laser. I would have to assume there are many other suitable sites where water serves as a base line scattered around the world.

But the thing is that after Hampden lost his bet he became disinterested in surveying because it contradicted his belief.

This is why people who believe in the flat Earth never want to use real science and prefer to simply rely on their visual observation or at best a low res camera. When they do try to use science they have to make up their own to make it fit their belief.

[sandokhan]

A few formulas of interest.


CURVATURE

C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians


R = 6378,164 km

s = distance



VISUAL OBSTACLE




BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h²]^1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = altitude of observer



To obtain the formula for the maximum difference of level between two points, we simply modify the first equation:






As an example, let us use the distance in the Columbus' journal, 90 km: