Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Rothbard

Conclusive Test - Ball vs. Flat - Let's Do It

110 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

@VonLud @Han sole (and other math persons)

I'm excited about this one as I will take this out on a big lake this weekend and will test it myself and will show the results no matter what. 

However, I need to know whether I am wasting my time.  Math lovers ... is MrThriveAndSurvive right?  Is this the easiest most conclusive test ever?

In short, on a sphere - if you make a 60-60-60 triangle - one of the sides will be longer than the others.  For example, if the base is 100 units, the 2 sides will both be 80 units.  On a flat surface - with a 60-60-60 triangle - all sides will be equal.  If you have a base of 100 units, the 2 other sides will both be 100 units. 

I'm thinking of taking three 500 foot ropes out to a lake and will measure out the 60 degrees.  If the water is curved, like the globalists believe, then the base will be 500 while the 2 sides will be 400 each.  If the flat earthers are right, then the base will be 500 and both sides will be 500.

Is this correct?  One issue I needed confirmation on is whether the ratio holds up on a larger scale, i.e., is the ratio dependent on the size of the globe.  The other question is whether the third angle will also be 60 degrees on a globe (they showed only 2 angles in the video) - this won't change the outcome as two 60 degrees angles is sufficient but it would be good to know whether it truly is a 60-60-60 triangle [update:  I believe the triangle on the sphere creates a 60-60-90 triangle but that shouldn't impact the experiment].  Can both sides agree that this test is determinative if done correctly?

 

Edited by Rothbard
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds logical. I will watch the video tomorrow so I can't figure out how to set the three points. On shore or buoys? 

There should be scads of tests we can perform, preferably on still waters. Like the Rowbotham experiment that got some of us started in FE. If there is a canal over 5 miles long, with markers the whole way, when we look through a telescope we should be able to determine if the markers drop from sight on a curved earth. A little checking of expected drop will show, of course, that the marker is visible the entire length.

Shucks, we already have beaucoup visible proofs. The Suez Canal, 100 miles long and level from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. The 10-Question video you posted earlier also mentioned Lake Baikal in Russia. It is almost 400 miles long.   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Baikal

I didn't find any pictures worth using. Wouldn't that be something? to see the opposite end on a crisp winter day? Technically, that would be impossible, as a 395-mile distance calls for a drop from sight of close to 3 miles.

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, grav said:

It sounds logical. I will watch the video tomorrow so I can't figure out how to set the three points. On shore or buoys? 

There should be scads of tests we can perform, preferably on still waters. Like the Rowbotham experiment that got some of us started in FE. If there is a canal over 5 miles long, with markers the whole way, when we look through a telescope we should be able to determine if the markers drop from sight on a curved earth. A little checking of expected drop will show, of course, that the marker is visible the entire length.

Shucks, we already have beaucoup visible proofs. The Suez Canal, 100 miles long and level from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. The 10-Question video you posted earlier also mentioned Lake Baikal in Russia. It is almost 400 miles long.   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Baikal

I didn't find any pictures worth using. Wouldn't that be something? to see the opposite end on a crisp winter day? Technically, that would be impossible, as a 395-mile distance calls for a drop from sight of close to 3 miles.

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

 

If the math holds up, I am going to stake two points on the beach 500 feet away from each other with a rope attached to the two stakes (the rope taut just above the water).  I will then take a boat out with two ropes (one attached to each stake) to establish the third point by getting the 60 degrees angles right with the two ropes again taut above the water.  I also plan on doing this on the Bonneville Salt Flats as well - which will be a lot easier.  I just need confirmation that the math is right; I don't want to waste a lot of time and effort. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is when VonLud should put in his two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@grav

Quick findings.  Here's my exercise ball experiment (my son's handwriting - homeschool experiment):

http://i1290.photobucket.com/albums/b540/Rothbard1/20160331_134723%201_zpshkkokwbf.jpg

The ratio held up.  The top angle however was not 60 degrees but 90 degrees.  I didn't get that before.  It doesn't have an effect on the experiment.

Edited by Rothbard
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rothbard said:

I'm thinking of taking three 500 foot ropes out to a lake and will measure out the 60 degrees.  If the water is curved, like the globalists believe, then the base will be 500 while the 2 sides will be 400 each.  If the flat earthers are right, then the base will be 500 and both sides will be 500.

Is this correct?  One issue I needed confirmation on is whether the ratio holds up on a larger scale, i.e., is the ratio dependent on the size of the globe.  The other question is whether the third angle will also be 60 degrees on a globe (they showed only 2 angles in the video) - this won't change the outcome as two 60 degrees angles is sufficient but it would be good to know whether it truly is a 60-60-60 triangle.  Can both sides agree that this test is determinative if done correctly?

 

I know you don't like my opinions, but I am going to put it out there for you and anyone who cares to look.

That test will fail to prove curvature (if there is any measurable amount using this method over such a tiny distance compared to the radius of the spherical earth model) and here is non mathematical reason why; Too many variables using rope.

-In order to keep the rope straight you need to apply tension to it effectively skewing the results. Keeping 500 feet of it out of the water would be quite a lot of tension. If you are able to apply enough tension from a boat to keep it all nice and level and out of the water, you are basically creating a flat plane in the air above the water with rope, and the experiment becomes pointless. 
-Also, having one point fixed at on boat (even when anchored) would make keeping an even 60-60-60 angle set nearly impossible.
-Finally, any rope that long (no matter what material is it made from) would naturally have a dynamic quality to it so when you apply tension to the 2 sides over the water, you will lengthen them both and that will alter your angles ruining your experiment.

37 minutes ago, Rothbard said:

If the math holds up, I am going to stake two points on the beach 500 feet away from each other with a rope attached to the two stakes (the rope taut just above the water).  I will then take a boat out with two ropes (one attached to each stake) to establish the third point by getting the 60 degrees angles right with the two ropes again taut above the water.  I also plan on doing this on the Bonneville Salt Flats as well - which will be a lot easier.  I just need confirmation that the math is right; I don't want to waste a lot of time and effort. 

Now that is your best bet for being able to control some variables. However, why mess around with complicated Trig formulas when a simple linear experiment would be ideal at that location? 

Find 2 spots of equal elevation about a mile or more apart. Put camera at the starting point near ground level (zoomed in and focused on the endpoint), taking snapshots every couple minutes or so, and then bike or walk to the end point. If your feet and lower calves disappear, you proved curvature, if not, you proved flatness. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lived by a port for many years.

Go to the highest point at the port and watch a ship sail over the horizon. That is the only experiment you need to do. Not only proves curvature it proves water curvature on a sphere. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Guitar Doc said:

I lived by a port for many years.

Go to the highest point at the port and watch a ship sail over the horizon. That is the only experiment you need to do. Not only proves curvature it proves water curvature on a sphere. 

For real? Did you then find the boat with a telescope?

How do you reconcile being able to see islands 50, 100, 200 miles away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RabidWolf said:

I know you don't like my opinions, but I am going to put it out there for you and anyone who cares to look.

That test will fail to prove curvature (if there is any measurable amount using this method over such a tiny distance compared to the radius of the spherical earth model) and here is non mathematical reason why; Too many variables using rope.

-In order to keep the rope straight you need to apply tension to it effectively skewing the results. Keeping 500 feet of it out of the water would be quite a lot of tension. If you are able to apply enough tension from a boat to keep it all nice and level and out of the water, you are basically creating a flat plane in the air above the water with rope, and the experiment becomes pointless. 
-Also, having one point fixed at on boat (even when anchored) would make keeping an even 60-60-60 angle set nearly impossible.
-Finally, any rope that long (no matter what material is it made from) would naturally have a dynamic quality to it so when you apply tension to the 2 sides over the water, you will lengthen them both and that will alter your angles ruining your experiment.

Now that is your best bet for being able to control some variables. However, why mess around with complicated Trig formulas when a simple linear experiment would be ideal at that location? 

Find 2 spots of equal elevation about a mile or more apart. Put camera at the starting point near ground level (zoomed in and focused on the endpoint), taking snapshots every couple minutes or so, and then bike or walk to the end point. If your feet and lower calves disappear, you proved curvature, if not, you proved flatness. 

 

 

I feel compelled to agree with @RabidWolf's points here.  The experiment on the lake has too many variables that would make the hardcore on both sides have arguable points.  I like the salt flats idea, though.  And RabidWolf's idea, again, seems to be a great one.  

The key will be finding an area with two points of equal height that is a good distance apart.  You do that...and it shows a flat earth, I don't see BEarthers having a leg to stand on!!  

I keep looking at these pictures showing objects at great distances... those are great but most, if not all were innocent bystanders taking them.  There is an argument of how high up the picture taker was... Let's take that argument away!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Agree with Rabidwolf. Over small distances relative to the supposed size of the spherical earth it would be hard to distinguish between flat or globe The maths is sound but you would have to use large distances to see any effect.

Edited by Redorblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for making me watch that video. I can't stand him because it seems like he is trying to fool people. He always leaves out an important part of the discussion.

He is not making a 60-60-60 equilateral triangle in his experiment. So the sides will never be the same length.  Even on your ball picture, the third angle does not make 60 degrees. A true triangle always adds up to 180 degrees. Tape is not a good way to do the experiment because of the deflection. Also, it is impossible to make a 60-60-60 triangle on a sphere with straight, rigid objects. (Without them protruding away from the surface)

Using spherical geometry you can make a 60-60-60 triangle on a sphere, but you need to take into account the "spherical defect", where the sides of the triangle are curved outward.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalDefect.html

http://www.had2know.com/images/spherical-triangle.png

Quote

Consider an equilateral triangle laid out on the surface of a spherical world. Each side of the triangle has length s and is a geodesic. Geodesics are what pass for straight “lines” in the spherical world. They are curved in the radial direction – otherwise they would stick up away from the surface – but they are as straight as they can be and still remain on the surface. And as usual, the thin flat two-dimensional creatures that live on the surface have no way of observing the third dimension.

If the triangle is very small (compared to the size of the sphere), the effects of curvature are negligible. (We say that the sphere is locally flat.) Therefore in our equilateral triangle, the interior angles are 60 degrees.

https://www.av8n.com/physics/spherical-triangle.htm

So, it won't work. For these reasons and the others laid out before.

 

Edited by VonLud
Better Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Guitar Doc said:

I lived by a port for many years.

Go to the highest point at the port and watch a ship sail over the horizon. That is the only experiment you need to do. Not only proves curvature it proves water curvature on a sphere. 

It proves nothing, the ships disappear via our vanishing point vision based on height vs distance of object.  This has been shown & proven, what appears to be curvature drops are just vanishing point perspectives, telescopes bring all the boats back into view.   Whether on a mountain or on a beach, a telescope will bring what is thought to have gone over the curvature right back into view. 

We're all not into this FE research stuff for no reason, lol, we've long since eliminated all possible and easy explanations & debunks.  The Earth is not a sphere, never was, never will be, and anyone can prove this to themselves doing home experiments.  You have to give us SOME credit here..... there are literally MILLIONS of people who have jumped on FE this past year, that's because there is something to it.  Do we FE'ers in this forum seem THAT retarded to you guys that we would believe such a thing without serious evidence supporting a flat Earth?  lol

 

1 hour ago, RabidWolf said:

I know you don't like my opinions, but I am going to put it out there for you and anyone who cares to look.

That test will fail to prove curvature (if there is any measurable amount using this method over such a tiny distance compared to the radius of the spherical earth model) and here is non mathematical reason why; Too many variables using rope.

-In order to keep the rope straight you need to apply tension to it effectively skewing the results. Keeping 500 feet of it out of the water would be quite a lot of tension. If you are able to apply enough tension from a boat to keep it all nice and level and out of the water, you are basically creating a flat plane in the air above the water with rope, and the experiment becomes pointless. 
-Also, having one point fixed at on boat (even when anchored) would make keeping an even 60-60-60 angle set nearly impossible.
-Finally, any rope that long (no matter what material is it made from) would naturally have a dynamic quality to it so when you apply tension to the 2 sides over the water, you will lengthen them both and that will alter your angles ruining your experiment.

Now that is your best bet for being able to control some variables. However, why mess around with complicated Trig formulas when a simple linear experiment would be ideal at that location? 

Find 2 spots of equal elevation about a mile or more apart. Put camera at the starting point near ground level (zoomed in and focused on the endpoint), taking snapshots every couple minutes or so, and then bike or walk to the end point. If your feet and lower calves disappear, you proved curvature, if not, you proved flatness. 

 

 

RW it's not that we don't like your opinions, we don't like patronizing & condescending tones, this is actually a good opinion you have here that makes sense.  I like things that make sense, don't care who or where it comes from, I think there are probably easier and better experiments we can do..... mainly the night time balloon launches. 

If I had the funds, I would do a multi sync'd balloon launch world wide, doesn't have to be 100s just 3-4 launches, getting the 4 corners kind of thing if possible.  Never put all the eggs in one basket, have many baskets & fail safes.  Documenting the sight of the sun "at night" in the distance would conclusively prove the Earth is flat..... but can we achieve the height with a balloon necessary to see this distant sun on the other side of the world?  That's why I want to do about 4 launches spread out at the same time of day.

Another experiment I'd do if I could pay for it would be sending a drone to the center pole area and/or directly toward this sun.  Communications with the drone will be impossible at those heights so it would need a booster signal around that height to receive it on the ground, or just program the drone for a set source and retrieve.   Until these experiments can be done, it won't hurt to try new ideas like this, but I'm not one of the math guys, to me this won't convince anyone in the public either way as they can't brain such a concept of proof.  People want to see "the edge" so to speak, visual proofs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.