|
|
Post by jeranism on Apr 28, 2015 9:05:13 GMT
Hey everyone- I want to do an experiment in the coming days and it will be a simple one but I think one that can really open the eyes of many. My question is, how large of an area would you think I need to do to make the outcome definitive? By walking this path and making 3 left turns, the distance from point 1 to 4 should be equal to others after 90 degree angles. If it is 100 yards, Earth is proven flat. If I am -5 feet, proof the earth is a globe. How large do you think this experiment should be?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 9:19:42 GMT
In my opinion, the more precise your instruments for measuring distances, the smaller the distance needs to be. However, I don't know enough about this subject to tell you how long the distance should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 28, 2015 9:45:15 GMT
jeranismI don't understand the premise of this experiment. Why can't the same thing happen on a round Earth? You're not measuring any curvature. You're just measuring the distance. How does this have anything to do with the shape of the planet? Maybe I just don't understand it, but could you please explain why this should prove flat Earth. I am not sure how you will measure the angles correctly either.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 28, 2015 9:53:31 GMT
I cannot understand what you mean by walking the square. Presumably you mean the results you will get on paper after making your measurements.
A skilled surveyor can detect the curvature of the earth in a 100m X 100m square. If you dont have access to modern suryeying equipment then you need to have something at least a kilometer square and you still have to have a fantastic ability to measure angles. A project like this is really impossible unless you can get some old surveying gear and have larger distances or you hire modern equipment.
|
|
|
|
Post by oterraplanero on Apr 29, 2015 15:01:06 GMT
I understood it. It's something like this: You canot put a square paper on a ball's surface.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 29, 2015 16:00:30 GMT
I understood it. It's something like this: You canot put a square paper on a ball's surface. Yes but he wants to prove that and had an idea about walking a square. How can he prove anything by walking a square? He will need detailed measurements in three dimensions and unless he gets professional helpers using the latest surveying equipment he will need a much bigger square than 100msq |
|
|
|
Post by oterraplanero on Apr 29, 2015 16:17:50 GMT
Yes but he wants to prove that and had an idea about walking a square.  Can you see? |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 29, 2015 16:41:55 GMT
Yes but he wants to prove that and had an idea about walking a square. Can you see? sigh |
|
|
|
Post by oterraplanero on Apr 29, 2015 16:53:57 GMT
Sigh what? You can't draw a square on a ball. With 90 degree angles you'll never walk a square on a ball earth. That's what the guy is trying to experiment. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 29, 2015 17:04:11 GMT
Sigh what? You can't draw a square on a ball. With 90 degree angles you'll never walk a square on a ball earth. That's what the guy is trying to experiment. How is 'walking a square' going to help him get a result? How can he 'walk a square' to the great accuracy required to get a result?? By what method is he going to move his body in the required direction to the huge accuracy he needs to get a result? |
|
|
|
Post by sceptimatic on Apr 29, 2015 18:28:28 GMT
90 degree turns on a sphere would make a triangle with 3 lines. Now this has never been done but is cited as evidence for a globe by those that pretend they know what they're talking about.
Naturally if the Earth was flat and you theoretically drew the same lines, you would end up with a square over distance.
The issue here is, the OP is saying that if he draws his lines at 90 degrees over a small area, then he will either make a potential square from 3 points and by marrying up the first and last points, it would make a perfect square and thus proving a flat Earth. Or he can make the 3 points which will not marry up to make a square and would be skewed by a good few feet difference, meaning the Earth would favour a globe model.
To be totally honest, I think this would be best done on a frozen lake.
|
|
|
|
Post by oterraplanero on Apr 29, 2015 18:30:12 GMT
90 degree turns on a sphere would make a triangle with 3 lines. Now this has never been done but is cited as evidence for a globe by those that pretend they know what they're talking about. Naturally if the Earth was flat and you theoretically drew the same lines, you would end up with a square over distance. The issue here is, the OP is saying that if he draws his lines at 90 degrees over a small area, then he will either make a potential square from 3 points and by marrying up the first and last points, it would make a perfect square and thus proving a flat Earth. Or he can make the 3 points which will not marry up to make a square and would be skewed by a good few feet difference, meaning the Earth would favour a globe model. To be totally honest, I think this would be best done on a frozen lake. Very well said. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 29, 2015 19:36:07 GMT
90 degree turns on a sphere would make a triangle with 3 lines. Now this has never been done but is cited as evidence for a globe by those that pretend they know what they're talking about. Naturally if the Earth was flat and you theoretically drew the same lines, you would end up with a square over distance. The issue here is, the OP is saying that if he draws his lines at 90 degrees over a small area, then he will either make a potential square from 3 points and by marrying up the first and last points, it would make a perfect square and thus proving a flat Earth. Or he can make the 3 points which will not marry up to make a square and would be skewed by a good few feet difference, meaning the Earth would favour a globe model. To be totally honest, I think this would be best done on a frozen lake. Very well said. The simplest method is to use line of sight across the frozen lake where for every 1000M you would have 7.8cm of 'error' if the world was round. That would be easy to detect with a telescope if you placed graduated/marked poles along the line of sight Once you use squares or triangles you then have to measure angles where even for a 1000m square or triangle the curvature of the earth is so small you would need surveying equipment to detect the error |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 20:00:18 GMT
I asked for an opinion the folks at the Moon Society group on Facebook. I obtained useful information for our test: From another Facebook group, Michio kaku: |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 29, 2015 20:27:03 GMT
a triangle and/or square,,, cannot be a real triangle nor a real square on any curvature,,. because it is in fact 'curving' LOL!!! a real 45degree turn can only be accomplished on a flat dimension... any curvature distorts the actual angle...  but this was a good way to promote your socal ford sponsors... |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 29, 2015 20:33:55 GMT
a triangle and/or square,,, cannot be a real triangle nor a real square on any curvature,,. because it is in fact 'curving' LOL!!! a real 45degree turn can only be accomplished on a flat dimension... any curvature distorts the actual angle... but this was a good way to promote your socal ford sponsors... It goes without saying i think that triangles or squares would have to be above the earths surface. Anyway the triangle or square excerise is pointless because a straight line of sight is far easier. The distances given by the moon people are insanely high though - I really have no idea what led them to think such distances were necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 29, 2015 20:38:22 GMT
its this simple: the map makers like marco polo,,, did not draw on a pear as they travelled... no ship uses "the globe" to navigate... sorrry,,. but the flat map has been pretty darned reliant for the last few thousand years and SoCal ford dealers suk!.. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 29, 2015 20:41:40 GMT
its this simple: the map makers like marco polo,,, did not draw on a pear as they travelled... no ship uses "the globe" to navigate... sorrry,,. but the flat map has been pretty darned reliant for the last few thousand years and SoCal ford dealers suk!.. From where do you get the idea a ship is not using a globe model to navigate? I suppose you do know what a minute of lat and long represent? |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 29, 2015 20:57:26 GMT
this is like trying to compare dimensions of a ford ,,. with a chevy  |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 29, 2015 21:02:27 GMT
im from san pedro... and let me tell you that i have yet to seee a pearshaped globe map on deck... bhahaha,,. wayyy tooo comical... how many fords have you helped sell so far? are you a scientist or a car salesman?.. lol!!! |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 29, 2015 21:04:50 GMT
@simon
What are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 29, 2015 21:08:12 GMT
if i cannot see a curvature,,. and yet i can see catalina island from san pedro,,. then its flat... the numbers and angles on flat papers are not relative to numbers and angles on a pear.., lol... simple... and Socal ford dealers,..stilll suk!.. |
|
|
|
Post by Redsci on Apr 30, 2015 11:38:15 GMT
Well you can measure the curvature using trigonometry,the same method how the greek philosophers measured the curvature of the earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 30, 2015 11:51:09 GMT
if i cannot see a curvature,,. and yet i can see catalina island from san pedro,,. then its flat... Catalina island is only 25kms from san pedro and is over 600m high. From that distance you will lose around 100m of the island |
|
