Strange Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 instead, explain this one to me Can you be honest, now you have moved away form the pretence of "just asking", is this purely a religious thing?
Confusi Posted January 2, 2016 Author Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) Nothing to do with religion, if fact, it went down as stated in my original post! The more I look into it, the less convinced I am that we know the truth. I really don't mean to be disrespectful but as I look into my own experiences, I KNOW that I can see things over thirty miles across the sea. I am a keen sea kayaker and, apart from the examples in the last few posts, I know that I can see Bardsey Island, off the tip of the llyn peninsula, from Aberffraw on Anglesey, I have discussed kayaking to it with a friend on many occasions whilst looking at it, from the beach, 32 miles away! (not kayaking from that beach!) I have also climbed many mountains in Snowdonia, some of which give an excellent panorama of the sea, I can honestly say that I have never witnessed curvature. The thing that has sparked all this is learning the extent of the curvature, 8 inch per mile. I am sure this would have been apparent at least once in my many experiences! I don't have any alterior motive and I didn't want to start an argument or mud slinging, that is why I was willing to leave you all alone a few posts back. Edited January 2, 2016 by Confusi -1
Strange Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 I suggest you join the flat earth society, where you can find yourself at home with some like-minded morons. Hmmm... it looks like there are two of them. You might have to work which reaches the appropriate level of delusion for you: http://www.tfes.org/ http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm Or maybe more than two. I think this tells you all you need to know about the mentality of flat-earthers: In 2015, an independent Flat Earther Eric Dubay started an online debate forum named after the first modern Flat Earth Society, The International Flat Earth Research Society (IFERS).[33]Dubay did this out of his belief that all other Flat Earth societies are "controlled opposition". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies#Modern_Flat_Earth_Societies This article has some interesting insights into the psychology of these sort of delusional beliefs: http://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html
studiot Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 confusi The thing that has sparked all this is learning the extent of the curvature, 8 inch per mile. I am sure this would have been apparent at least once in my many experiences! The problem is this is a false figure. Rather than cat calling, I have several times offered to explore your misconception about this with you to help you find out the truth. Each time the silence from your side of the border has been deafening.
Confusi Posted January 2, 2016 Author Posted January 2, 2016 The problem is this is a false figure. Rather than cat calling, I have several times offered to explore your misconception about this with you to help you find out the truth. Each time the silence from your side of the border has been deafening. I dont know where you get this impression studiot, indeed, I thanked you for your post... I'd never heard about the hymalayas effecting gravity like that, and your explanation of level is very enlightening and answers some of my other questions, thank you! The curvature of 8 inch per mile (actually 7.98) is the only one I have come across, The factory dimensions you mentioned is too vague to gain a figure. Perhaps you could enlighten me? @Starnge, thanks for calling me a moron!
Strange Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 @Starnge, thanks for calling me a moron! I very carefully did not call you a moron. So, as well as sharpening up your critical thinking skills, you also need to work on your reading comprehension. I hope you are very young and therefore have plenty of time to work on these things.
studiot Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) I dont know where you get this impression studiot, indeed, I thanked you for your post... The curvature of 8 inch per mile (actually 7.98) is the only one I have come across, The factory dimensions you mentioned is too vague to gain a figure. Perhaps you could enlighten me? @Starnge, thanks for calling me a moron! Perhaps you can point me at your reply to my post#35? The calculation is one of the most common in civil engineering surveying since it involves the deviation of a circular curve from a straight line tangent. The formula in question is not a linear proportion as you suggest but is [math]Offset = \frac{{{{\left( {Dis\tan ce} \right)}^2}}}{{2*Radius}}[/math] If we put in one mile (working in feet) then [math]Dip = \frac{{1*1*5280*5280}}{{2*20,900,000}} = 0.7'or8inches[/math] Which is the 8" figure you have found But look what happens, because the formula is not proportional, when we put in 32 miles (in feet). [math]Dip = \frac{{32*32*5280*5280}}{{2*20,900,000}} = 683'[/math] Yes six hundred and eight three feet. Edited January 2, 2016 by studiot
zapatos Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 Sorry, this does not make sense! It either spins or does not, where does this magical boundary exist where the rotation, (which must be 000's of MPH) suddenly stops? As I said, it does spin. As I also said, it does not suddenly stop.
Phi for All Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 As I said, it does spin. As I also said, it does not suddenly stop. I think it's an all-too-human perspective that wants patterns to have defined edges. We want a color wheel with white lines dividing the colors so we can differentiate them. Without the white lines, the colors just subtly change as you progress along the wheel. You don't know exactly where blue stops and indigo begins, and that's not a trustworthy pattern. It seems logical (in the "this makes sense to me" redefinition) that there is a point where the atmosphere is, and one step further the atmosphere isn't. But given the complex nature of the system, it's far too simplistic to be a productive perspective.
Confusi Posted January 3, 2016 Author Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) Perhaps you can point me at your reply to my post#35? The calculation is one of the most common in civil engineering surveying since it involves the deviation of a circular curve from a straight line tangent. The formula in question is not a linear proportion as you suggest but is [math]Offset = \frac{{{{\left( {Dis\tan ce} \right)}^2}}}{{2*Radius}}[/math] If we put in one mile (working in feet) then [math]Dip = \frac{{1*1*5280*5280}}{{2*20,900,000}} = 0.7'or8inches[/math] Which is the 8" figure you have found But look what happens, because the formula is not proportional, when we put in 32 miles (in feet). [math]Dip = \frac{{32*32*5280*5280}}{{2*20,900,000}} = 683'[/math] Yes six hundred and eight three feet. Thank you studiot, and sorry for believing a figure I got from a few random sources on the internet,( that was 7.9 inch!) Bardsey is 0.6 miles (1.0 km) wide, 1.0 mile (1.6 km) long and 179 hectares (440 acres; 0.69 sq mi) in area.[3] The north east rises steeply from the sea to a height of 548 feet (from wikipedia ) So if we allow 6 feet as my height, I cannot see Bardsey island because it's summit is 120 feet below the horizon? Edited January 3, 2016 by Confusi
studiot Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 Having cleared the calculation issue let us move on to your next misconception about horizon views. I repeatedly asked what was seen from the dockside as a ship sailed away. There was a very good resason for this, as my rather scruffy sketch demonstrates. As the ship sails away the lower part disappears first, so in my sketch you can see first (closeup) the whole vessel dwon to the waterline. But as it moves off you get to the point where only the scuppers and above are visible. Next the lower mast disappears. Finally the cross tree, followed by the upper mast. You do not see this effect unless the object is moving away from you (This is one case where relative motion is asymmetric) So you would not see it from your canoe. Nor would you see it with two railway lines at the same level. Of course what you can see also gets smaller due to perspective as the object gets further away, but the point is not its size but its profile.
Ophiolite Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 As the ship sails away the lower part disappears first, so in my sketch you can see first (closeup) the whole vessel dwon to the waterline. But as it moves off you get to the point where only the scuppers and above are visible. Next the lower mast disappears. Finally the cross tree, followed by the upper mast. Facts that were well understood by Samuel Taylor Coleridge as revealed by these lines from The Ancient Mariner: The ship was cheered, the harbour cleared, Merrily did we drop Below the kirk, below the hill, Below the lighthouse top. And that was despite being an opium addict.
Confusi Posted January 3, 2016 Author Posted January 3, 2016 one moment Studio, I don't think we made much headway with your finer calculations yet. I said that the lighthouse and Bardsey island were "to the tune of " 600 feet below sea level, you corrected me that it was actually 683 feet, but how does that work then? The ship was cheered, the harbour cleared,Merrily did we dropBelow the kirk, below the hill,Below the lighthouse top. I think there could be a double meaning to this, especially if he was an opium addict!
studiot Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) Facts that were well understood by Samuel Taylor Coleridge as revealed by these lines from The Ancient Mariner: The ship was cheered, the harbour cleared, Merrily did we drop Below the kirk, below the hill, Below the lighthouse top. And that was despite being an opium addict. That was how I learned to type, on an ancient Underwood (manual of course). I used to send it to university and back as part of my luggage courtesy, British Rail. Just placed it into an old grip with the handles tied together by the address label so it was obvious what it was. There was never any damage or problem. Ah those were the days my friend. (a more recent poet) confusi Did you just say that an island was 600 feet below sea level or was it my naval rum? Perhaps you would like to explain. Edited January 3, 2016 by studiot
Confusi Posted January 3, 2016 Author Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) an island was 600 feet below sea level lol An island 638 feet below the horizon! Sorry, my lager, not your rum learning that you are drinking Navy Rum gives this image a more graven feeling Edited January 3, 2016 by Confusi
studiot Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 Drink it? I thought you were supposed to bathe in it. 1
Ophiolite Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Ah those were the days my friend. (a more recent poet) confusi Did you just say that an island was 600 feet below sea level or was it my naval rum? 1. I concede that Lennon was a poet, but McCartney? 2. Did confusi mean below sea level, or below see level? 1
studiot Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Ophiolite Did confusi mean below sea level, or below see level? Aren't they the same after enough rum? Instructions for imbibing navy rum. 1) Pace your sailor's bonnet on the deck by your hammock 2) Climb into your hammock 3) Sip the rum 4) Continue to sip the rum until you can see two bonnets: you have had enough. Edited January 4, 2016 by studiot
CharonY Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 OMG, is that yours, or did you hear that elsewhere? Dang, I just got this irony meter for Christmas! It was an order of magnitude more sensitive than the last one that got broken. The technology just can't keep up anymore. See, that is why you want one that is less sensitive for online purposes. I use an old anvil as a meter. It still broke though.
Phi for All Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 See, that is why you want one that is less sensitive for online purposes. I use an old anvil as a meter. It still broke though. Mine was mostly plastic and cynicism, with no iron. But I paid a LOT for it, so that's nice.
CharonY Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 That is weird. Cynicism usually works fairly well as isolator.
studiot Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Returning to my post#13 and seriousness for a moment. You seemed interested in my comments about Everest's survey of India in your post#14 so here is some more detail. It is an observed fact that if you set up three theodolites on the surface of the Earth at three locations forming a triangle and observer the three angles of that triangle your observed angles will add up to more than 180o. By the time of the survey of India this phenomemon was well known and understood. It was called spherical excess. Like the offset calculation from the curve its effect is small when the points are small distances apart but increases rapidly as size of the triangles grow. For a (nearly) equilateral triangle of 100 mile sides the excess is almost exactly 1 minute of arc (57 seconds) and the excess may be divided equally between the angles so you will observe each angle to be 60o 00' 19". For your 32 mile length the effect is just less than 9" total or 3" per angle. Mathematically this is known as Legendre's theorem and cannot happen on a flat Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendre%27s_theorem_on_spherical_triangles Edited January 4, 2016 by studiot 2
Confusi Posted January 4, 2016 Author Posted January 4, 2016 Would that angle be measured as the discrepancy from plumb at the theodolite?Was this theory first physically observed on the earth or mathematically?
Confusi Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 As I'm sure you guys would trust NASA, I wonder what you make of this film by them that appears to show a jet flying at 317,000 feet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7BhcufC-5Y
Strange Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 I see a nice curved horizon, just like from every other high-altitude plane (when it is actually at its maximum altitude).
Recommended Posts