Flat Earth?

[Chinahand]

3 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

22 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Sigh - well Paul, are you going to try and solve a 14 year olds old's maths problem rather than insisting I'm ignoring the Rochester University while I patiently build an argument based around the Rochester University web page?

Here's the diagram - your objective is to get an expression for y depending upon x and h.

I'm guessing you'll not be up to it and will accuse me of being religious, but why don't you give it a try.

Not at all china nothing religious about this diagram. Its just irrelevant to the point of this thread. We are looking for scientifically validated evidence that the earth is a spinning oblate spheroid.

Maths doesnt cut it.

I just challenged you to show me where it is in the scientific method?

Paul, You might want to check the Rochester University Page again:

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

Now you've said that trig is easy.  So come on - what angle is being referred to in the expression atan(x/h)

[paul's got wright]

Really china ok then, what is maths the cause of? What does maths cause to happen in nature?

[paul's got wright]

Correlation is not causation china x

[Chinahand]

Well let's build the model and we can discuss issues like that.

Any idea about the angle?

[paul's got wright]

But why give any credence to a model when it automatically, by definition, means you have a limitation on your hypothesis?

Have a read of this china, it outlines your common error x

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1057150.pdf

[Chinahand]

Paul, you don't know what my model is, but you are making all sorts of claims about it.  Talk about being presumptuous.

I've repeatedly asked you to engage and be patient, but you clearly think you already know all the answers.

Rather than being so dismissive, why not actually try.

[Bobbie Bobster]

@Chinahand Do you realise that paul's sole reason for posting in this Topic is to refute the position that FE is not worth talking about, by showing all the interweb crazies that are actually talking about it?

He's not interested and cares not a jot about evidence to support the reality of the shape of the Earth, all he's interested in is showing that it is a topic of (for a very specific and not generally accepted definition of the word) "broad" discussion.

Each time someone believes that they are engaging to try to convince him of the unflattedness of the Earth, they are operating under an incorrect assumption.

Now a normal person would have made the point about FE being an active internet fringe discussion and maybe got on with their life, but he seems to get some significant enjoyment out of making the same point over and over again.  Weird hobby, but each to their own, I suppose.

Having said all this, I have enjoyed your description of various experimental methods of determining the general shape and size of the planet.  But don't think you're ever going to get him to engage directly.

@paul's got wright I think it would be generally accepted that there are a lot of internet weirdos talking about FE, and occasional sane people get tricked into engaging with the crazies.  So there is a discussion.  Well done.  Congrats.  Take the rest of the week off.

But nobody actually cares about that discussion.  Because it's stupid.  Sorry.

[Chinahand]

I've added another angle α into the diagram as it is easier to explain.  The diagram consists of two right angle triangles - a smaller one with (non-hypothenuse) sides of length h and x, and a larger one with sides h and (x+y).

In the smaller triangle there are the two angles θ and α.

Tan α = x/h.  So α = atan(x/h).

The second bigger right angle triangle has 3 angles - the right angle (90 degrees) at O, one which is one degree less than θ ie (θ-1), and the third one which is one degree bigger than α.  But we already know α = atan(x/h), so this third angle is equal to (atan(x/h) + 1).

The tan of this angle is equal to (x+y)/h

So 

tan(atan(x/h) + 1) = (x+y)/h

So

(x+y) = h tan(atan(x/h) +1)

y = h tan(atan(x/h) + 1) - x

Now, Paul, are you willing to accept this is a standard mathematical equation with y being the dependent variable, and independent variables x and h.

 

[paul's got wright]

5 minutes ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

@Chinahand Do you realise that paul's sole reason for posting in this Topic is to refute the position that FE is not worth talking about, by showing all the interweb crazies that are actually talking about it?

He's not interested and cares not a jot about evidence to support the reality of the shape of the Earth, all he's interested in is showing that it is a topic of (for a very specific and not generally accepted definition of the word) "broad" discussion.

Each time someone believes that they are engaging to try to convince him of the unflattedness of the Earth, they are operating under an incorrect assumption.

Now a normal person would have made the point about FE being an active internet fringe discussion and maybe got on with their life, but he seems to get some significant enjoyment out of making the same point over and over again.  Weird hobby, but each to their own, I suppose.

Having said all this, I have enjoyed your description of various experimental methods of determining the general shape and size of the planet.  But don't think you're ever going to get him to engage directly.

@paul's got wright I think it would be generally accepted that there are a lot of internet weirdos talking about FE, and occasional sane people get tricked into engaging with the crazies.  So there is a discussion.  Well done.  Congrats.  Take the rest of the week off.

But nobody actually cares about that discussion.  Because it's stupid.  Sorry.

Wrong blobster, i have written in this thread, many reasons for posting here, but your religion blinds you from even the simplest of facts.

I dont regard tyson and v sauce as crazies, nor the manx media, nor the bbc etc etc.

Your second paragraph is fantasy. Prove it or remove it. Emotional pleas will not cut it bobbie, we need proof in here remember?

"Believe" and "convince"  are cult words blob! Why would people be in here doing that?

And for someone who turns up here religiously as you do bob, your sign off is comical . remember the days when no one would even talk about it, but now people dedicate their lives to it, globe lie tours and conferences dont you know! x

 

 

[Bobbie Bobster]

Yeah, but it's stupid.

[paul's got wright]

So if me an manxy were the only ones in here it would be a bit like the astronomy thread! Not much happenin. Its the audience and participants making this thread great! Long may it continue x

[paul's got wright]

Heres one for you bob, some great comments in there also x

backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-is-scientific-prediction.html

[Chinahand]

Paul the idea the world is flat is stupid, it is only taken seriously by people who are ignorant and deliberately ignore evidence while believing ludicrous conspiracies involving NASA, ESA, the Chinese, Japanese and Indian space agencies, every company operating geostationary and telecommunications satellites etc etc.  They have no understanding of the way the sun and stars move through the skies, nor well understood and explained phenomenon like atmospheric refraction.

[Bobbie Bobster]

Just now, Chinahand said:

Paul the idea the world is flat is stupid, it is only taken seriously by people who are ignorant and deliberately ignore evidence while believing ludicrous conspiracies involving NASA, ESA, the Chinese, Japanese and Indian space agencies, every company operating geostationary and telecommunications satellites etc etc.  They have no understanding of the way the sun and stars move through the skies, nor well understood and explained phenomenon like atmospheric refraction.

Precisely. Nobody disagrees that the internet has given a medium for weirdos to spout on about FE, bit nobody takes it seriously. It's stupid.

[Chinahand]

Now Paul - let's try using our equation:

y = h tan(atan(x/h) + 1) - x

Now IF the earth is flat, if light travels in straight lines, if the sun is 6000 km vertically above the earth then quite definitely if you are 500 miles away from the point on the earth vertically below the sun you will have to move a further 105.6 (and a bit) km away for the angle up to the sun to be reduced by 1 degree.

That is a factual, causal relationship.  The change in the angle measured up to the sun is caused by you moving that distance across the surface of the flat earth - if the world is actually the same as we have assumed.  Obviously if it isn't then this will not happen, but if it is it will.

I am not saying anything controversial in saying this.