Prove the Earth is round

[DangerousBeliefs]

Our good friend Kumar has put forth a challenge - Prove the Earth is round.

Unfortunately, he added clauses like Prove the Earth is round "to an idiot".

So, how about it folks?

I can think of a mathematical proof, that of Eratosthenes (http://math.rice.edu/~ddonovan/Lessons/eratos.html) from around 230 BC.

He basically took measurements at two different spots on the Earth and used these to figure the circumference... showing the Earth is a near circle.

I would also add that if one goes onto a high mountain, she should be able to see "the other end of the Earth" if it was flat. Since it is not, one could potentially use basic geometry to figure the angles and come up with a rough circumference.

This all assumes that math is correct and 1 + 1 = 2 (a stretch, I know).

Beyond that, I'm thinking shooting Kumar into space might be the next best option.

Any other ideas on proving the Earth is round without photography?

Originally posted by Kumar
Mr.devefoc& others,

It is not a right approach to reject any existing aspect just because it could not be seen properly. I can also speak as under:-

Prove me the earth is round or oval not flat

Any aspect unless experienced or seen personally & physically by the majority of world population, can not be taken as proved. All the camera photography can be just a trick photography & all the mentionings or teachings can be just a hypnotisms for the Vested Interests i.e. money, popularity & publicities. One of the said best achievement of CS is that they made earth as round/oval from flat but not yet seen/experianced physically by majority of world's population. Science can not confirm/prove it unless this majority check it like a ball in their fingers. Whereas, in all practical & physical experiences it is flat. If it is round like a ball how we can stand errect & stable. How water & things on it are stable. I say it can be fake mentionig that it is round/oval because all the things can be stable on flat surface not on round surface.

Most of the scientific new research may work in this manner. Whereas homeopathy along with other sprituals are physically experianced by this majority.

In the above considerations, how you can prove Current science & disprove homeopathy along with other sprituals?

[Elaborate]

I can't take credit for this one, but here's a very simple way I once read.

Take the presupposed idiot out onto the beach, and watch the ships sail away. Point out to him that the bottom of the ship dissappears firs, next the middle, and finally the funnels/masts. This makes sense only if the Earth is round, and the ship is folowing the curve of the Earth. If the Earth were flat, however, the ship would appear to get smaller and smaller until it was just a dot on the horizon.

[SquishyDave]

Hmmm, as I understand it, to experience this personally requires you to find an ocean, find a sail boat, or at least a boat with a tall mast or structure, get some good binoculars or a telescope on a tripod, watch as the boat sails away, and see the bottom of the boat disappear before the top of the mast.

To prove it mathematically, do the shadow measuring thing at different spots on the earth.

Edited to add: CURSE YOU ELABORATE!! :) Same time post but you beat me too it.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

The Earth casts a curved shaddow on the moon.

[T'ai Chi]

Walk in a straight line (a truly straight line) out your front door.

Later, you will reach your back door.

[teddygrahams]

Throw babseball very fast towards the west. Catch baseball while facing east. Read stuck-on list of countries passed-through from said baseball.

[Dorian Gray]

Tell them that the different time zones prove the world is round. I mean, after all, they are an idiot.

[Iamme]

Send somebody like Billy Graham up in the space shuttle and have him look back on earth. We will then rely on him to tell us the truth as to what he sees.

[shemp]

Any idiot knows the Earth is round. It takes a very special idiot to believe the Earth is flat.

Here's the proof: nobody who manufactures globes has yet been convicted of consumer fraud.

[shemp]

Another proof: give the idiot a shovel and tell him to start digging in the U.S. If he pops up in China, the Earth is round.

This brings up a question: If the Earth is flat, what the hell is on the bottom side?

[xouper]

SquishyDave: Hmmm, as I understand it, to experience this personally requires you to find an ocean, find a sail boat, or at least a boat with a tall mast or structure, get some good binoculars or a telescope on a tripod, watch as the boat sails away, and see the bottom of the boat disappear before the top of the mast.This effect can be experienced with the naked eye, no telescope or binoculars required.

[pupdog]

Get a transit or level and shoot a really long line.

Observe tides, moon, & sun, and try to explain using a flat-earth model.

Where would Pellucidar be if the earth was flat?

Stand on the edge of the earth and try to measure a plumb line.

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by xouper
This effect can be experienced with the naked eye, no telescope or binoculars required. Oh Ok, thanks, that makes it just that little bit more accessable for people to try this themselves, and settle in their own mind the earth is round. I would use some binoculars, as then I could really see it clearly but it's good to know if I am ever in this situation without magnification devices I can see it.

[TillEulenspiegel]

UMM the earth isn't round , it's pear shaped. You can't see that from my house tho. I think the ship example is a good start , but the ancient mathmatitian/plumber procrastinese ( seeking to find the best gradient for doo-doo disposal in a waste pipe, but not wanting to rush anything ) performed an experiment . The setting is that he starts out at a point with the sun directly overhead on the summer solstice with a stick ( called at the time "stick" I beleve ) june 21 at the equator then moving north and performing the same experiment (after mesuring the distance he traveled ) a year later devined not only that the earth was round but it's approximate size ( he was a little off, he had tiny feet) and the food was better up north.
Hope this helps.

[BillyJoe]

To an idiot, it is not possible to prove that the Earth is round.

You can try every explanation you can think off and spend a great deal of time explaining each proof in detail until you are red, hot, sweaty and exhausted with your efforts. But at the end of all this, the idiot will calmly state.....

"Yeah but.....I still think it's flat"

BillyJoe.

[Brown]

In one of Carl Sagan's books (probably "Broca's Brain"), he describes a visit to a kindergarten class. He asks the kids how they could know that the world is round. The kids' responses stunned him.

They mentioned things like pictures of the Earth from space and the Foucault pendulum.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Elaborate
Take the presupposed idiot out onto the beach, and watch the ships sail away. Point out to him that the bottom of the ship dissappears firs, next the middle, and finally the funnels/masts. This makes sense only if the Earth is round, and the ship is folowing the curve of the Earth. If the Earth were flat, however, the ship would appear to get smaller and smaller until it was just a dot on the horizon.

UNLESS IT FELL OFF THE EDGE!! :eek:

:D

[xouper]

BillyJoe: To an idiot, it is not possible to prove that the Earth is round.Interesting point. Just look how difficult it's been trying to convince some poeple that <nobr>0.999... = 1</nobr> in another recent thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29713) that has grown to more than 400 posts. :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

http://www.sumeria.net/cosmo/hollow.html

You guys are all wrong. The Earth is actually an inverted globe. We actually live inside of it.

[dsm]

Originally posted by shemp
This brings up a question: If the Earth is flat, what the hell is on the bottom side?

A turtle (http://www.ie.lspace.org/ftp-lspace/images/bookcovers/uk/the-discworld-mapp-1.jpg)?

[xouper]

Elaborate: Take the presupposed idiot out onto the beach, and watch the ships sail away. Point out to him that the bottom of the ship dissappears firs, next the middle, and finally the funnels/masts. This makes sense only if the Earth is round, and the ship is folowing the curve of the Earth. If the Earth were flat, however, the ship would appear to get smaller and smaller until it was just a dot on the horizon.

dsm: UNLESS IT FELL OFF THE EDGE!! :eek: :D:D If you are standing at the end of Navy Pier in Chicago, for example, and watch a ship sail north along the coast of Lake Michigan, you will see it disappear over the horizon, despite that it stays within sight of land at all times.

[Zep]

Originally posted by xouper
Interesting point. Just look how difficult it's been trying to convince some poeple that <nobr>0.999... = 1</nobr> in another recent thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29713) that has grown to more than 400 posts. :) Ah, but we are not idiots, and the conversation there has been quite an education for all, including me. (NOT of how bright you are or how dumb we are :) ).

Suggested solution:

1. Ask idiot-1 to select an idiot friend of similar mind (or lack thereof), called idiot-2.

2. Ask idiot-2 to walk east about 20,000 km (i.e. half a hemisphere away). Or take by airplane if they are less dense.

3. At midday, ask idiot-2 to find a phone and call idiot-1 and get them to check if the sun is shining in both places.

4. If the sun IS shining in both places then the world is flat. If not, it's round.

Failing that, the following solution is suggested:

1. Have idiot-1 AND idiot-2 walk east until they fall into an ocean.

2. Repeat with any other idiots.

[xouper]

Zep: Ah, but we are not idiots, I stand corrected. I should have used the phrase "stubborn people who for some unfathomable reason refuse to accept the standard math proofs that 0.999... = 1." Apparently the correct word for that kind of person is not "idiot". :) Please accept my apology.

[Ladewig]

1. Ask idiot-1 to select an idiot friend of similar mind (or lack thereof), called idiot-2.

2. Ask idiot-2 to walk east about 20,000 km (i.e. half a hemisphere away). Or take by airplane if they are less dense.

3. At midday, ask idiot-2 to find a phone and call idiot-1 and get them to check if the sun is shining in both places.

4. If the sun IS shining in both places then the world is flat. If not, it's round.

And what would your response be when idiot-1 says: the earth is flat and the the sun is not bright enough to illuminate the entire surface at once?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
I can think of a mathematical proof, that of Eratosthenes (http://math.rice.edu/~ddonovan/Lessons/eratos.html) from around 230 BC.

He basically took measurements at two different spots on the Earth and used these to figure the circumference... showing the Earth is a near circle.

I would also add that if one goes onto a high mountain, she should be able to see "the other end of the Earth" if it was flat. Since it is not, one could potentially use basic geometry to figure the angles and come up with a rough circumference.

This all assumes that math is correct and 1 + 1 = 2 (a stretch, I know).

And that light travels in straight lines.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Zep
Suggested solution:

1. Ask idiot-1 to select an idiot friend of similar mind (or lack thereof), called idiot-2.

2. Ask idiot-2 to walk east about 20,000 km (i.e. half a hemisphere away). Or take by airplane if they are less dense.

3. At midday, ask idiot-2 to find a phone and call idiot-1 and get them to check if the sun is shining in both places.

4. If the sun IS shining in both places then the world is flat. If not, it's round. Idiot: "Yeah but.....I still think it's flat."

Now what?

BillyJoe.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ladewig
And what would your response be when idiot-1 says: the earth is flat and the the sun is not bright enough to illuminate the entire surface at once? Then clearly the sun is as dim as both the idiots, and I would employ my second suggestion.

[Zep]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Idiot: "Yeah but.....I still think it's flat."

Now what?

BillyJoe. I gave an alternative solution. I would employ it.

[Zep]

Originally posted by xouper
I stand corrected. I should have used the phrase "stubborn people who for some unfathomable reason refuse to accept the standard math proofs that 0.999... = 1." Apparently the correct word for that kind of person is not "idiot". :) Please accept my apology. Thank you. I stand to be better educated, but not to be brow-beaten.

[xouper]

Zep: I stand to be better educated, but not to be brow-beaten.Agreed.

It's an interesting irony that earlier in that math thread, on Oct 30, I compared you and the others to someone who continues to insist the Earth is flat despite all reasonable evidence that it's round. Perhaps you missed that. According to your proposed solution in this thread, I should just recommend that you "walk east until you fall into an ocean." :)

But you are correct that you don't deserve to be brow-beaten over the issue. A good swim should suffice. :)

[Kumar]

All these things other also feel & can say when anyone says that his substancially existing theory have no value.:p

[Zep]

Originally posted by xouper
Agreed.

It's an interesting irony that earlier in that math thread, on Oct 30, I compared you and the others to someone who continues to insist the Earth is flat despite all reasonable evidence that it's round. Perhaps you missed that. According to your proposed solution in this thread, I should just recommend that you "walk east until you fall into an ocean." :)

But you are correct that you don't deserve to be brow-beaten over the issue. A good swim should suffice. :) ...which is Xouper's way of saying "Go take a long walk on a short pier," folks.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
All these things other also feel & can say when anyone says that his substancially existing theory have no value.:p Indeed we can! That is how this "science" works. It is subject to rigourous peer review. This is something that is probably new to you, being more familiar with homeopathy and crystal-gazing and like stuff.

You have proposed a theory: The earth is flat. We have reviewed that theory by putting up a number of different experiments that could be used to demonstrate that your theory is demonstrably at odds with reality as we know it.

Furthermore, an alternative theory, that the world is basically spherical, has been be subject to the same tests, and what has been revealed is that the data gathered holds very closely to this particular theory. A spherical earth looks to be a good fit to the data available.

Therefore we can conclude with a high degree of confidence that the flat-earth theory is so weak as to be considered "wrong", while the spherical earth theory is an extremely strong candidate for describing reality.

Do you know what the next steps might be? Some questions that have already occured to people centuries ago are ones like: how BIG is this sphere, and how do I measure the latitude and longitude of this sphere accurately? Do you know your history?

[xouper]

Zep: ...which is Xouper's way of saying "Go take a long walk on a short pier," folks.I was offering your own suggestion back to you. You suggested that those idiots who don't accept the evidence for a round Earth could "walk east until you fall into an ocean." I simply observed that that might also be a good suggestion for those who don't accept the evidence that 0.999... = 1. Don't blame me. It was your suggestion. :D

[Drooper]

Well, I reckon that anyone who can prove that the earth is round deserves a Nobel prize.

I have been of the belief for some time that the earth is spherical.

I never would have guessed that such an esteemed collection of sceptics would turn out to be flat-earthers. ;)

[Kumar]

Mr.Hans,

You might have been felt the differance in language & teachings of science & Sprituals.

All,

I noticed today only that how much I have been highlited here. If you say so then, I am not least convinced from your magical tricks & other mentionings. I can not be convinced unless I observe in the manner I mentioned, which is most logical & real may not be practical.

Lost ship may be away from our visual limit, Sun is said to 'rise in the east & set in the west', a universal truth, it may mean sun can also move not earth causing light & dark at differant places on earth at differant time. Earth can also rotate flat causing differance in illuminations at differant places. There can be some obstructions of mountains etc. which may cause light & dark at differant places as in hilly areas. All the measurements are impractical to measure by the common men & can be some tricks & so on.......Some examples/experiments;

Ex. No 1 ; Take a 12''X12" glass sheet. Keep it of flat earth. Put a drop of water, it doesn't moved slightly on the glass till it evaporates. Now tilt or raise one side & again put a drop of water, warter moves towords the lower side. Proves earth is flat.

Ex.No 2; Stand on a flat earth, see you don't fall, now stand on a foot ball, see if you can stand or fall?

Ex.No 3; Take a aeroplane, take it to some 10000' high, see the earth is flat or round from its windows?

Ex. No 4 : Take a 50' X 50' round card board sheet, put a candle on one side of it. Just see if one part of card board is bright & other side dark(sun movement of flat earth)

I think there can be several Expriments like this which can prove otherwise.;) :p :D :)

Some experiments to check homeopathic efficiency;

1. Go to a homeopth when sick, keep faith in it & experiments the remedies.

2. Slect some 4 biggest idiots among many idiots. Send them each towords four directions all over the earth, give them one/few big note books with pens. Ask them to visit all homeopathic clinics & ask only few question from the available patients as under:-

(a) Why they came there, when so much publicity contrary to homeopathy, don't you believe in scientific findings?

(b) If you take homeopathic treatment, if yes since how many years?

(c) Are you satisfied & healthy with the treatments?

(d) Do you get adverse or side effects?

(e) How much you spend on this treatment?

(f) Do the homeopath attend properly & gives sufficient time or not?

(g) Do you feel natural repulsion to visit here or not?

(h) Remarks.......

If the earth is round as you say then they will reach to the same point after some time. They can also take planes, vehicles etc if can afford. When they come back then average the results. If it is more than 50% it means homeopathy works otherwise not.

Then you again send them to all the directions with note books & pens to genral public with following simple questions:-

(a) Wheter you have seen full earth by naked eye in my style?

(b) If above awnser is yes! then if it is round or flat??

Just simple experiments which an idiot can also do. :D

[The Don]

Oh Mr Kumar, you are too fonny !!!! Every time you is typing, is me laffing so much

Me may have to stop work soon as may need to change trousers from too much funny

What prescription is you on ? from where you get ? Must get some soon

[sickstan]

Originally posted by The Don
Oh Mr Kumar, you are too fonny !!!! Every time you is typing, is me laffing so much

Me may have to stop work soon as may need to change trousers from too much funny

What prescription is you on ? from where you get ? Must get some soon

This is grossly unfair to castigate a fellow forum person for being unable to communicate coherently. Just because Kumar can't string two thoughts together with logical sense doesn't mean you are permitted to laugh at him!!!!!:rolleyes:

What if I were unable to express topic-congruent ideas in a concise, logical manner? Would you humiliate me too??? ;) ;)

[CurtC]

Drooper wrote:
I have been of the belief for some time that the earth is spherical.So are you saying that a sphere isn't round? Must be some New Math definition of "round."

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Drooper
Well, I reckon that anyone who can prove that the earth is round deserves a Nobel prize.

I have been of the belief for some time that the earth is spherical.

I never would have guessed that such an esteemed collection of sceptics would turn out to be flat-earthers. ;)

A flat Earth with an atmosphere of some ungodly refractive index could explain the ship over the horizon thing, Erastothenes' measurements, etc. It's no more counter-intuitive than the Earth going around the Sun. :p

[shemp]

Originally posted by sickstan


This is grossly unfair to castigate a fellow forum person for being unable to communicate coherently. Just because Kumar can't string two thoughts together with logical sense doesn't mean you are permitted to laugh at him!!!!!:rolleyes:

What if I were unable to express topic-congruent ideas in a concise, logical manner? Would you humiliate me too??? ;) ;)

Sure! Why not?

[roger]

Originally posted by Kumar
Ex.No 2; Stand on a flat earth, see you don't fall, now stand on a foot ball, see if you can stand or fall

Wow, I like your thinking!!! Let's use the same logic to test if the world is flat:

Take a flat board 3 inches square and balance it tenuously on a wobbly surface, see if you stand or fall.

Hmm, I fell off, thus the world can't be flat either.

[Deetee]

Originally posted by CurtC
So are you saying that a sphere isn't round? Must be some New Math definition of "round."

The earth is actually not a sphere. It is an oblate spheroid.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by xouper
I stand corrected. I should have used the phrase "stubborn people who for some unfathomable reason refuse to accept the standard math proofs that 0.999... = 1." Apparently the correct word for that kind of person is not "idiot". :) Please accept my apology.

Ya? well try this one with idiots.............

When the sum of all forces ( weight , lift ,thrust, drag ) acting on an airplane equals 0 the airplane is in straight and level flight.

[phildonnia]

I used to work in Mountain View in the San Francisco area. We were on the 12th floor, and on a really clear day, you could see San Francisco, right across the bay, about 40 miles away.

With a small telescope (someone brought one in), you could easily see that the Transamerica building seemed to be coming right out of the water, even though its base was perhaps 10 or 20 feet above sea level. I suppose if you could count the floors, you could calculate the size of the earth.

Amazingly, you could not see any part of the Richmond bridge, which was hidden by the curvature of the water's surface. You could see more distant objects like Mt Tam. or Mt. Diablo.

[DickK]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Amazingly, you could not see any part of the Richmond bridge, which was hidden by the curvature of the water's surface. Dear god, is nothing safe from Uri Geller?

Edit: Oops, I just realised that that might be litigious, of course, I didn't mean Uri Geller, I mean, well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturer of dairy products. :p

[CurtC]

Phildonnia wrote:
With a small telescope (someone brought one in), you could easily see that the Transamerica building seemed to be coming right out of the water, even though its base was perhaps 10 or 20 feet above sea level. I suppose if you could count the floors, you could calculate the size of the earth.Here are some quick calculations. If you were 200 feet above sea level (150 feet for the 12th floor, plus some for the building's base above sea level), your horizon should be about 17.3 miles away. That leaves 22.7 miles remaining, for which the height should be about 345 feet up. Googling, I find that the TA building is about 850 feet, and it's pretty close to sea level, so you should have seen approximately the top two-thirds of it sticking out of the water.

Edited to add: the Richmond bridge is 325 feet tall, so would have barely been under the horizon.

[c0rbin]

Kumar is like a wordy Agur!

[xouper]

TillEulenspiegel: Ya? well try this one with idiots............. When the sum of all forces ( weight , lift ,thrust, drag ) acting on an airplane equals 0 the airplane is in straight and level flight.Since those forces also sum to zero for a plane sitting in a hangar, I prefer to say it the other way around - if an airplane is in straight and level flight, then those four forces sum to zero.

We can blame Aristotle for anyone who doesn't accept that one (Aristotle claimed f=mv, and not f=ma). Actually, I don't recall having had problems with anyone not accepting that one. The myth of downwind turns, though, that's a slightly different story. And don't get me started on the Bernoulli/Newton lift thing. :D

[Terry]

Originally posted by xouper
The myth of downwind turns, though, that's a slightly different story.

Aaargh!!! NO!!!!! Run away!

--Terry.

[Melissa Johnson]

--If the earth is flat, what's on the other side?

Ooh ooh, I know the answer! The other side is on the other side! After all, where would China go?

Of course the world is flat, you dinks. If it were round , the water would slide off. Ever try to keep water on a round thing?

Jeeze louise. Even a garden variety idiot like myself knows this much...:D

[epepke]

Originally posted by Deetee


The earth is actually not a sphere. It is an oblate spheroid.

It's closer to a sphere, however, than any billiard ball. If all mountains were leveled, it would be closer to a sphere than any ball of the bearing kind.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by epepke

It's closer to a sphere, however, than any billiard ball. If all mountains were leveled, it would be closer to a sphere than any ball of the bearing kind.

But I believe it's a lot less spherical than the Gravity Probe B gyroscopes (then again, those are the best spheres that have ever been designed by people).

[Zep]

I am revising my opinion of Kumar. I don't think he is an idiot. Idiots are brighter than that.

:tr:

[CurtC]

epepke wrote:
It's closer to a sphere, however, than any billiard ball. If all mountains were leveled, it would be closer to a sphere than any ball of the bearing kind.I don't think this is right. A long time ago I was involved in a Usenet discussion sorting out the question about the Earth scaled down to billiard ball size. You can read the whole thread here (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=32E5687F.3D2F%40hp.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbilliard%2Bball%2Bsmooth%26hl%3Den%26 lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D32E5687F.3D2F%2540hp.com%26rnum%3D2).

The upshot is that the Earth is, in my opinion, slightly rougher than a decent billiard ball, but it's clear that the Earth is more out-of-round than a billiard ball.

[Rocky]

I spend a lot of time each year out on the Bonneville Salt flats, where you can alomst see the curve. Someday I'll place a bunch of bright LEDs every 1/2 mile for 2-3 miles then take a photo through a telescope.
I'm always thinking about new ways to prove that the earth is round(ish). My proofs were not for idiots, but for no someone that had never seen to concept and without the use of technology.
one idea:
1)Build a fire on a beach.
2)look at it from across a body of calm water at about 5 miles away.
3)Notice that the fire will disapper if you lower your eye level.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Rocky
[B]I spend a lot of time each year out on the Bonneville Salt flats, where you can alomst see the curve. Someday I'll place a bunch of bright LEDs every 1/2 mile for 2-3 miles then take a photo through a telescope.
...


Who's going to believe that you got all those lights at the same elevation? I think you need something filled with water, which even idiots believe seeks its own level.

[Rocky]

Originally posted by phildonnia


Who's going to believe that you got all those lights at the same elevation? I think you need something filled with water, which even idiots believe seeks its own level.

Who says it isn't? In October I drove through a 2 mile long, 2 inch deep puddle (not good for the bottom of my car since it is salt water). (I would actually do it when it's dry.)

a photo form a year ago:

[Johnny Pneumatic]

How is Kumar able to work a computer if he/she is that dim?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by xouper
Since those forces also sum to zero for a plane sitting in a hangar, I prefer to say it the other way around - if an airplane is in straight and level flight, then those four forces sum to zero.

We can blame Aristotle for anyone who doesn't accept that one (Aristotle claimed f=mv, and not f=ma). Actually, I don't recall having had problems with anyone not accepting that one. The myth of downwind turns, though, that's a slightly different story. And don't get me started on the Bernoulli/Newton lift thing. :D
O crap I dont wanna pick a fight with a math guy....but,

an airplane ( cessna 150 ) on the ground has an enumeration of forces thus:
thrust =0, drag = 0, lift = 0 weight = ?~ 2500lbs , clearly they are not equal.

[xouper]

TillEulenspiegel: O crap I dont wanna pick a fight with a math guy....No fight. But how about a conversation to sort out, or clarify, what we are trying to say and possibly reach a mutual understanding? :)

but, an airplane ( cessna 150 ) on the ground has an enumeration of forces thus:
thrust =0, drag = 0, lift = 0 weight = ?~ 2500lbs , clearly they are not equal.So yer saying there is a net force downward (due to gravity) and thus the airplane is accelerating in that direction? :)



[obligatory pedantic content]

BTW, typical gross weight of a 1969 Cessna 150 is around 1600 lbs., and sitting in the hangar with no fuel, occupants or baggage, the empty weight is about 1100 lbs. Give or take a few.

[/pedant]

[Kumar]

. Ask idiot-2 to walk east about 20,000 km (i.e. half a hemisphere away).

Another proof: give the idiot a shovel and tell him to start digging in the U.S. If he pops up in China, the Earth is round.

This brings up a question: If the Earth is flat, what the hell is on the bottom side?



It looks 'Idiot' is a common word among science community. I asked some questions out of the postings here from one senier member of science community. He just shouted & said who idiots asks these types of questions. If this type of experiments are already carried out, if not it means it is not yet proved.

Btw if earth is just round, what is the slope per kilometer.

[BillyJoe]

All,

It is best not to argue with Kumar.

You can show him all the reasons why the Earth is round
(spherical, ovoid, oblate speroid YOU IDIOTS! ) but he will
just come back with.....

"Yeah but, I still think the Earth is flat"

Also, he will be misunderstood again and again because of his
difficulties with the language. For example, in the diabetes thread
his 10 year old diabetic turned out to be a fifty year old diabetic
of ten years duration but it took a week of wasted effort before
that misunderstanding was finally revealed.

Kumar needs to attend an own language website.

BillyJoe

[Kumar]

Also, he will be misunderstood again and again because of his Gramatical mistakes are better then the abuses & not suited to educated people. 10 year old diabetes means 10 year dianetes history. When I mentioned oral medicine it means type2. I think 10 year old can not be type2 & take oral medicines. I don't know whether it a language differance or of the understanding. I was not refered back with this type of misunderstanding from any other place who have also received similar opinion in same language.

[Zep]

His language skills or lack therof have nothing to do with it. For example:Kumar: Btw if earth is just round, what is the slope per kilometer.I think my last point stands well enough.
:tr:

[BillyJoe]

Kumar you said.....

Originally posted by Kumar
10 year old diabetes means 10 year dianetes history. But this is what you said in that thread.....

Originally posted by Kumar
He in 10 years old diabetic BillyJoe.

[Kumar]

Visual differance of ship is to be measured on per kilometer basis.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Visual differance of ship is to be measured on per kilometer basis. Just to play along...


What is the slope of a tennis-ball?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kumar


It looks 'Idiot' is a common word among science community. I asked some questions out of the postings here from one senier member of science community. He just shouted & said who idiots asks these types of questions. If this type of experiments are already carried out, if not it means it is not yet proved.

Btw if earth is just round, what is the slope per kilometer.

Kumar, I have worked in a few areas with a lot of ethnic and cultural differences. You do not have to apologise for the misunderstandings that have occured. We have resolved them, which just goes to show how incredible it is that we can have conversations across the whole world. I am sure your English is much better than our Hindi. (Or whatever it is you call it).

However, it is quite easy to see the shape of the world, if you can get to a reasonably high building or mountain. The curvature is quite apparent even 38 stories up.

[BillyJoe]

zep,

Don't do it.
You can't win.

BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

a_unique_person,

I think you might end up spitting up into the
noonday sun on a calm summer solstice day

BillyJoe. :cool:

[Zep]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
zep,

Don't do it.
You can't win.

BillyJoe Oh, I don't expect to "win." I just want to see how far we can ride this particular hobby-horse...

[Kumar]

Since, no justified awnser to disaprove the experiments mentioned by me can be given (except some stage/street shows), my understandigs about 'the earth' &' the homeopathy do work' appears to be correct . Thanks! :D :D :D

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Since, no justified awnser to disaprove the experiments mentioned by me can be given (except some stage shows), my understandigs about 'the earth' &' the homeopathy do work' appears to be correct . Thanks! :D :D :D ...and that was not very far at all, as it appears.

Kumar, I had an outstanding question for you that I will repeat: What is the slope of a tennis-ball. Care to answer? Seriously.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Kumar
Since, no justified awnser to disaprove the experiments mentioned by me can be given (except some stage shows), my understandigs about 'the earth' &' the homeopathy do work' appears to be correct . Thanks! :D :D :D

Denial cannot be overcome with logic, reason, or evidence to the contrary.

The good news is that Darwinism will still function regardless of Kumar's beliefs.

[Kumar]

What is the slope of a tennis-ball. Care to answer? Seriously You are just repeating my question in other way. However you have not mentioned 'per- Km,meter,inch,cm,mm etc. so that others to measure & give reply.

[Terry]

Originally posted by Kumar

Btw if earth is just round, what is the slope per kilometer.

The slope of the earth is exactly 23.7
Okay?

No, but seriously... if the cross-section of the earth is (very close to) circular, it doesn't have a single unique value you can call it's slope. The essence of curvature is a non-zero second derivative.

--Terry.

[CurtC]

Dangerous Beliefs wrote:
Denial cannot be overcome with logic, reason, or evidence to the contrary.There's a famous quote, which I'm probably butchering, that goes something like "you can't use reason to argue a man out of a position that he didn't use reason to arrive at."

[Kumar]

Terry,

Thanks for mentioning. But I could not follow this awnser. Now I ask in simple language. Just assume we are standing on ball like earth. If we travel one kilometer on it from one point to other point in straight line along with its curvature. How much we will be deep on 2nd point from the first point. Tell me in mm,cm,metre etc.

[phildonnia]

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo17_earth.jpg

[Kumar]

Hello phildonnia,

Nice picture. What is this? It is flat on my screen.

[Crossbow]

There is one idea for proving that the Earth is round that I have not seen discussed yet.

Take an object to a fixed distance above the ground and let it drop being careful not to let wind or other actions change interfere with its motion.
Then, move some horizontal distance away and let the object drop to the ground in the same way.

Now very carefully measure the horizontal distance between the respective release points and the impact points.

If the Earth were flat, then these distances would be equal.
However, since the Earth is round the impact distance will be less than the release distance.

Further, knowing the difference between the horizontal distances and the vertical distance that the object fell, one can actually measure the size of the Earth. Also, since the same value for this calculation will result regardless of the direction between the first and subsequent drops, one can determine the Earth is round.

[Correa Neto]

Someone please tell me I am not seeing a debate Kumar x the world regarding the shape of the Earth... It has to be a bad dream...

Please tell me that there´s something else...:bs: :jaw:

[roger]

well, it's not much different than the .9... != 1 argument, now is it? :D

[Rocky]

Originally posted by Crossbow


If the Earth were flat, then these distances would be equal.
However, since the Earth is round the impact distance will be less than the release distance.


The rotation of the earth will affect the results in a small but important way.

[Rocky]

My Devil’s advocate view of a flat Earth would be a disk with the North Pole at the center. You could go east or west forever and north to the pole with out falling off the edge. This shape for a flat Earth could cast a round shadow on the moon.

To prove this view wrong: Study the night sky; note how it appears to also be a disk centered at the North Pole. Now travel south (being careful not to fall of an edge) and studying the sky each night. Soon you will discover that you are under a new disk centered on the South Pole. You are now on the bottom of the Earth. Still a disk, but safely having avoided the edge!

(Friends in the bottom hemisphere can reverse these instructions)


)snoitcurtsni eseht esrever nac erehpsimeh mottob eht ni sdneirF(

!egde eht dediova gnivah ylefas tub ,ksid a llitS .htraE eht fo mottob eht no won era uoY .eloP htuoS eht no deretnec ksid wen a rednu era uoy taht revocsid lliw uoy nooS .thgin hcae yks eht gniyduts dna )egde na fo llaf ot ton luferac gnieb( htuos levart woN .eloP htroN eht ta deretnec ksid a eb osla ot sraeppa ti woh eton ;yks thgin eht ydutS :gnorw weiv siht evorp oT

.noom eht no wodahs dnuor a tsac dluoc htraE talf a rof epahs sihT .egde eht ffo gnillaf tuo htiw elop eht ot htron dna reverof tsew ro tsae og dluoc uoY .retnec eht ta eloP htroN eht htiw ksid a eb dluow htraE talf a fo weiv etacovda s’liveD yM
:D

[DickK]

Sorry, I'm not a physicist or anything, nor am I interested in proving, to Kumar's surreal and obtuse fascination, that the world is round.

Is it permissible to use another well-formed idea as a basis for proof, or is that constrained by the "no proof by example" thing? Say, notions of Newtonian gravity and mass, that provide a system of models that are understood well enough to propose that, a spherical Earth would permit activities like running and jumping in the way that we observe them, and that a flat earth, er, would not.

I'm assuming that "he made it that way to test our faith" is an inadequate counter.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Rocky


The rotation of the earth will affect the results in a small but important way.

True, but that is only significant when the falling distances become quite large.

One could also argue that there are other factors which will have an affect as well such as the non-uniform gravitational field of the Earth, tectonic plate movement, etc.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Cute anicdote ( paraphrased from memory )

C.Sagan gives a lecture at the end an old lady comes up and tells him his model of the universe is poppycock, " everyone knows that the world is supported on the back of turtles". So Carl asks what is the last turtle resting on?", "why another turtle of course!"

[dsm]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Take an object to a fixed distance above the ground and let it drop being careful not to let wind or other actions change interfere with its motion. Then, move some horizontal distance away and let the object drop to the ground in the same way.


Doesn't this presume a stable Earth? For instance, if the flat-Earth is moving through space on the back of a turtle, then the distance between release points will be different than the impact points. Whether the difference will be greater or smaller depends upon the direction the turtle is moving.

True? :D :D

:p

[CurtC]

TillEulenspiegel, you gonna tell the rest of the story, or leave everybody hanging? There's a memorable punch line that goes with it.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by DickK
Is it permissible to use another well-formed idea as a basis for proof, or is that constrained by the "no proof by example" thing? Say, notions of Newtonian gravity and mass, that provide a system of models that are understood well enough to propose that, a spherical Earth would permit activities like running and jumping in the way that we observe them, and that a flat earth, er, would not.


I don't think so; our understanding of gravity was formed by a need to explain the facts; among them, that the earth is round.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
You are just repeating my question in other way. However you have not mentioned 'per- Km,meter,inch,cm,mm etc. so that others to measure & give reply. No, I'm asking you, not them. Your results will help form my answer. Go find a tennis ball and measure it for me, please. A cricket or hockey or baseball or something of that size will be just as sufficient.

Will you actually do this and report back to us all what "slope" you measure for one of these objects? Not just sit there in front of a computer and waffle on? Yes?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by xouper
No fight. But how about a conversation to sort out, or clarify, what we are trying to say and possibly reach a mutual understanding? :)

So yer saying there is a net force downward (due to gravity) and thus the airplane is accelerating in that direction? :)



[obligatory pedantic content]

BTW, typical gross weight of a 1969 Cessna 150 is around 1600 lbs., and sitting in the hangar with no fuel, occupants or baggage, the empty weight is about 1100 lbs. Give or take a few.

[/pedant]
Ahh HA!
not only do You start to reveal the approximation of your age , I see that your humor organ is equal in size to mine.

Well net forces, your discription is correct for a parked airplane , a net force downward with all others at zero ( unless the damn thing is facing the leading edge of a hurricane in the open.)

Cessna 150 was a long time ago for me , maybe that was the gross weight limit <shrug> are your bushes square and your albums arrainged in alphabetical order ? :D :D

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by CurtC
TillEulenspiegel, you gonna tell the rest of the story, or leave everybody hanging? There's a memorable punch line that goes with it.

Something like
"Oh, no, I see where you're going..."

[xouper]

Zep: No, I'm asking you, not them. Your results will help form my answer. Go find a tennis ball and measure it for me, please. A cricket or hockey or baseball or something of that size will be just as sufficient.

Will you actually do this and report back to us all what "slope" you measure for one of these objects? Not just sit there in front of a computer and waffle on? Yes?If I may be permitted to rephrase Kumar's question, he is asking if you extend a line out over the ocean (tangent to where you are standing), how far above sea level will the end of a one kilometer line be? I believe that is a reasonable interpretation of his use of the word "slope" in the manner he asked the question.

You may argue that this "slope" varies with line length and you would be correct. You are also correct that a curve has no overall slope. But it does have an instaneous slope at any given point, and that is what I think Kumar had in mind - what is the instantaneous slope of a point on the ocean one kilometer away.

[TillEulenspiegel]

NONONO wait!
Your all taking the wrong approch, Agamemnon taught me this. Your over anal-izing it and trying to exceed the scope of the question.
The thread topic was to prove that the earth is round. The picture from space conferms it!!
No one asked to prove that it is sphearoid! they asked if it was round. and by golly it is ! you-reaka

[xouper]

TillEulenspiegel: Ahh HA! not only do You start to reveal the approximation of your age , I see that your humor organ is equal in size to mine.Apparently so. :) For the terminally curious, I was 20 when I got my PPSEL in 1974 in a (then) 15 year old Cessna 150. It had a straight tail and a big ol' johnson bar between the seats for manual operation of the flaps. I haven't seen that plane since 1977 and I can still remember the tail number, 5858E, but I can't remember what I ate for lunch yesterday. And no, my albums (cds) are not yet in alphabetical order because I just unpacked them three months ago and I haven't gotten a round tuit.

[Zep]

Originally posted by xouper
If I may be permitted to rephrase Kumar's question, he is asking if you extend a line out over the ocean (tangent to where you are standing), how far above sea level will the end of a one kilometer line be? I believe that is a reasonable interpretation of his use of the word "slope" in the manner he asked the question.

You may argue that this "slope" varies with line length and you would be correct. You are also correct that a curve has no overall slope. But it does have an instaneous slope at any given point, and that is what I think Kumar had in mind - what is the instantaneous slope of a point on the ocean one kilometer away. Seriously, Xouper, you are making it a REASONABLE question and would be expecting a REASONABLE answer. And I'm sure we could calculate acceptable stuff by that or any of the other REASONABLE methods proposed above.

I would expect, however, that if we DID respond with a reasonable answer to this restated question that Kumar would then pull some inane and insane response out of his hat/bum that he believes proves that we are lying/stupid/wrong.

Kumar is basically using the tactic of gainsaying any and all methods of calculation being proposed, which is being UNreasonable. If he were serious then he would be at least listening and discussing, but he is not. My opinion, previously stated quite clearly, is that he is a troll.

HOWEVER...

If he wants to continue to play this silly game then he can go do what I ask for a change. Thank you for restating his question sensibly, but the ball is definitely in HIS court.

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Cute anicdote ( paraphrased from memory )

C.Sagan gives a lecture at the end an old lady comes up and tells him his model of the universe is poppycock, " everyone knows that the world is supported on the back of turtles". So Carl asks what is the last turtle resting on?", "why another turtle of course!" So Carl asks, "And what is that turtle on?"
"why another turtle of course!"
"And that turtle?"
"Oh no, I see where you're going, and you can't fool me, it's turtles, all the way down."

What can you say to that? :)

[CurtC]

Yep, xouper, that's a 1959 Cessna 150, serial numer 17358. Looks like it's in North Carolina.

I still remember the one I flew in 1979 - N2592B.

[Skeptoid]

I'd like to know the slope of Kumar's forehead. :D

[Dorian Gray]

To a seven-dimensional sentient being, the earth IS flat. At least, that's what that homeless guy told me.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Zep
Seriously, Xouper, you are making it a REASONABLE question and would be expecting a REASONABLE answer. And I'm sure we could calculate acceptable stuff by that or any of the other REASONABLE methods proposed above.


Zep, I empathize with your sense of frustration but the constraints you invoke , -reasonable thought or processes-, are completely subjective ( contrasted by one's own views which appear to explainable and obvious ) and OUTSIDE the scope of formal scientific stricture. Reason is a human commodity and as such has some ( coff,coff ) wiggle room .The only way to contrast the subtlies of diverging opinion is to invoke the experts view or demonstrate factually the aspects or the views held of your opponents are fallacious.

[Terry]

Originally posted by Kumar
Terry,

Thanks for mentioning. But I could not follow this awnser. Now I ask in simple language. Just assume we are standing on ball like earth. If we travel one kilometer on it from one point to other point in straight line along with its curvature. How much we will be deep on 2nd point from the first point. Tell me in mm,cm,metre etc.

I make it about 8cm. But note that if you go 2 km, it would be more than 16cm. That's what I meant about there not being a single number which is the slope of the earth.

--Terry.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are STANDING on a perfectly smooth sphere, wouldn't the slope be ZERO?

I mean, you are always the same level from the center.

Now the Earth has different slopes per kilometer because we have things like land masses, wind, gravitational forces, etc. The slope is different everywhere.

[Terry]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are STANDING on a perfectly smooth sphere, wouldn't the slope be ZERO?

I mean, you are always the same level from the center.


The surface of a sphere in free space would be a graviational equipotential surface. But it wouldn't be flat, in the geometrical sense. Okay, you can't roll a ball down the slope, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. You can see it, as has been pointed out with the ship example.

--Terry.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Terry
I make it about 8cm.How did you get 8 cm? I get about twice that.

[xouper]

CurtC: Yep, xouper, that's a 1959 Cessna 150, serial numer 17358. Looks like it's in North Carolina.Ain't the internet wunnerful? I didn't think to look it up.

North Carolina rings a bell, since that's Chuck Nelson's home state. When I flew 5858E, it was in Idaho and it was owned by Dan Gable. I met Dan and Chuck while we were all stationed at Mountain Home AFB in the early 1970s. At the time, Chuck owned a C-172, tailnumber 8222U. (Occasionally I would forget that U was uniform, and I'd call Boise tower from "8 triple 2 underwear" - they didn't always unkey their mic to hide their snickers.) When I made my first parachute jump in 1975, it was from 8222U with Chuck as the pilot. Later that same day, Chuck made his first parachute jump from 8222U with me as pilot. In both cases Dan was the jumpmaster. So now I wonder if Dan sold 5858E to Chuck. I guess I could go look it up. I haven't talked to either of those guys in years, kinda lost touch, I guess. If Chuck's not the current owner, then never mind . :)

[espritch]

Jeeze louise. Even a garden variety idiot like myself knows this much...

Yes. But we'er not garden variety idiots. We'er professionals!
:D

[Terry]

Originally posted by 69dodge
How did you get 8 cm? I get about twice that.

r² + 1000² = (r + h)²

where r = 6378100m

solve for h.

Actually, now I look at this, it's not exactly correct, since h is not normal to the tangent, as required by the problem. But that shouldn't make much difference given how small the angle is.

I dunno, maybe I just can't add up.

--Terry.

[Kumar]

Please settle & make a common decision about the slope. Please give with the calculations.

Please also give justifications & proofs of being 'earth as round' understoodable to a common man.

Recently, I found a strange thing. A mountain some far but visible from my window, was seen on one day but not seen on other day then again seen on next day. Do the visibility of Ship can also behave in this manner. Just an halucination/illusion due to continious watching/expectation (as in desert) or due to atmospheric & pollutions obstacles or due to more humid atmosphere just above the sea level.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Kumar
Please settle & make a common decision about the slope. Please give with the calculations.

Please also give justifications & proofs of being 'earth as round' understoodable to a common man.

Recently, I found a strange thing. A mountain some far but visible from my window, was seen on one day but not seen on other day then again seen on next day. Do the visibility of Ship can also behave in this manner. Just an halucination/illusion due to continious watching/expectation (as in desert) or due to atmospheric & pollutions obstacles or due to more humid atmosphere just above the sea level.

If a ship is beyond the horizon, then you wont see it regardless of how powerful your telescope is. The possibility of you seeing it is 0%.

When you have haze that limits your visibility, that possibility drops all the way down to 0%.

[Zep]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

Zep, I empathize with your sense of frustration but the constraints you invoke , -reasonable thought or processes-, are completely subjective ( contrasted by one's own views which appear to explainable and obvious ) and OUTSIDE the scope of formal scientific stricture. Reason is a human commodity and as such has some ( coff,coff ) wiggle room .The only way to contrast the subtlies of diverging opinion is to invoke the experts view or demonstrate factually the aspects or the views held of your opponents are fallacious. Oh, I'm not having a problem with the difference of opinion at all. It's the attitude that is the problem.

I was happy to differ with Xouper in another thread in which we firmly held (hold?) differing views on a certain subject, but both of us were prepared to use reasoned argument to uphold our views, not just gainsaying each other and being deliberately obtuse (although I suspect Xouper might disagree on this too! :) ). The discussion was vigourous, but I was fully prepared to consider Xouper's arguments as they were both reasonable points and it was Xouper arguing FOR his own assertion. But this charade over here has been quite different so far.

Really, if this were a "proper" scientific forum, Kumar is the one making the assertion of a flat earth as an alternative to a round earth (which is not really a valid proposal to start with - there may be other alternatives besides those two), so he should really be defending his view, not calling on us to defend our own view. Which is why I called "troll" earlier.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Please settle & make a common decision about the slope. Please give with the calculations.

Please also give justifications & proofs of being 'earth as round' understoodable to a common man.

Recently, I found a strange thing. A mountain some far but visible from my window, was seen on one day but not seen on other day then again seen on next day. Do the visibility of Ship can also behave in this manner. Just an halucination/illusion due to continious watching/expectation (as in desert) or due to atmospheric & pollutions obstacles or due to more humid atmosphere just above the sea level. For his next trick, he will prove sound travels faster than light because you can hear the train coming down the tunnel before you can see it.

[xouper]

Zep: I was happy to differ with Xouper

xouper: No you weren't.

Zep: in another thread

xouper: No, it was this thread.

Zep: in which we firmly held (hold?) differing views on a certain subject,

xouper: No, it wasn't.

Zep: but both of us were prepared to use reasoned argument to uphold our views,

xouper: I disagree.

Zep: not just gainsaying each other

xouper: Yes it was.

Zep: and being deliberately obtuse

xouper: Yes it was.

Zep: (although I suspect Xouper might disagree on this too! :) ).

xouper: Who, me?

Zep: The discussion was vigourous,

xouper: No it wasn't.

Zep: but I was fully prepared to consider Xouper's arguments

xouper: No you weren't.

Zep: as they were both reasonable points

xouper: Nope.

Zep: and it was Xouper arguing FOR his own assertion.

xouper: No I wasn't.



[/mode=montypython] :p

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Terry
I dunno, maybe I just can't add up.No, you're right.

I figured out what my mistake was. I was calculating the angle between two points that are 1 km from each other. That angle corresponds to a slope of about 16 cm / km. In other words, if we consider the ground at one point to be horizontal, the ground at a point 1 km away has a slope of 16 cm / km. Now if you travel for 1 km along a slope of 16 cm / km, you'll end up 16 cm lower than you started. But the slope isn't 16 cm / km for the whole distance. It changes gradually from zero, near the first point, to 16 cm / km, near the second point. The average slope is therefore half the maximum, or 8 cm / km.

I think I will blame xouper for the confusion. :p He wrote:<blockquote>he is asking if you extend a line out over the ocean (tangent to where you are standing), how far above sea level will the end of a one kilometer line be?</blockquote>but in the same post, as if it were the same question, he also wrote:<blockquote>that is what I think Kumar had in mind - what is the instantaneous slope of a point on the ocean one kilometer away.</blockquote>

[Kumar]

But the slope isn't 16 cm / km for the whole distance. It changes gradually from zero, near the first point, to 16 cm / km, near the second point. The average slope is therefore half the maximum, or 8 cm / km.

69dodge,

Thanks & sorry to keep you tensed. Your above quote is not clear. Please make it bit clear. Please also give your calculations about the same i.e.based on measurements of arc and radius etc. of the earth.

All,

What is limit of the naked eyes of a common person to see the ship as sharply as at 15/20 yards? Pls consider normal vision & all other environmental factors/obstacles as mentioned by me. Pls don't consider telescope as I can only believe in naked eyes for solid/true proof.

[xouper]

69dodge: I think I will blame xouper for the confusion. :p He wrote:<blockquote>he is asking if you extend a line out over the ocean (tangent to where you are standing), how far above sea level will the end of a one kilometer line be?</blockquote>but in the same post, as if it were the same question, he also wrote:<blockquote>that is what I think Kumar had in mind - what is the instantaneous slope of a point on the ocean one kilometer away.</blockquote> AACCK, you're right, they aren't the same. It's not that I didn't know the difference, I just got sloppy in my writing. But it's an error, just the same, that would get marked wrong on an exam.

I got pretty much the same numbers, 8 and 16 cm, using the following method:

If we draw a circle centered at the origin with radius 6378.1 km (Earth's equitorial radius), and then we draw a horizontal line starting at the top of the circle <nobr>(0, 6378.1)</nobr> and going in the positive x direction for one km, we will be at the point P at <nobr>(1, 6378.1).</nobr>

If we draw a line L from point P to the origin, the slope of that line is obviously dy/dx = 6378.1.

Let S be the point where L intersects the circle. The instantaneous slope of the circle at S is perpendicular to L, obviously, and is thus -1/6378.1, or -.01568 (which is 15.68 cm for every km). We should be able to get the same answer using the first derivative, but why bother.

To get the distance between P and S, we need to find the coordinates of S, which we can do by solving the simultaneous equations for the circle and line L.

6378.1² = x² + y²
and
y = 6378.1 * x

We could then find the distance between P and S using the pythagorean theorem, but the angle is so small that for the purposes of this puzzle, we can consider the hypotenuse equal to the difference in the y-coordinates. I'm willing to bet the answer is the same for at least the first four significant digits. So we really only need to solve for the y-cooridnate of S, and we get

y = 6378.09992160674953642193261891392

Thus the distance from S to P is approximately 7.839 cm.

[xouper]

Here's a commonly used rule of thumb for estimating the distance it takes for a ship to disappear over the horizon. This distance is the sum of the ship's local horizon and the viewer's local horizon. To estimate the local horizon in miles, take the square root of the height above water in feet and multiply by 1.25.

For example, for eyeballs that are 6 feet above the water (~1.8 meters), the local horizon is about 3 miles (~5 km).

For a ship that's 65 feet tall (~20 meters) the local horizon is about 10 miles (~16 km).

Thus, if a ship sails north from Chicago in a straight line up the coast of Lake Michigan, staying within sight of land at all times, then to an observer standing on the beach at water level in Chicago, the ship will completely disappear over the horizon in about 13 miles (~ 21 km), which is well within the limit of the human eye, no telescope needed.

Because of this, I strongly suspect that most professional sailors, even those who never left the Mediterranean, have always known the Earth is round and not flat.

Using the above rule of thumb for a ship that is 7.8 cm tall, its local horizon is 1 km, which is consistent with previous results.

[Kumar]

Hello xouper,

Thanks for doing hard work. Actually, I want to find out how much ship will go down or invisible due the assumption that earth is round, matched with our visual capability by naked normal eyes. I think we can not take visual capability to see complete & clear ship more then 1/2 Km considering atmospheric hazyness, moisture of sea etc.

Some more factors are to be considered as under:-

1. Height of Sea Waves.(.5 to 3 M)

2. Differance in water pressure on ship near the beach & in deep Sea due to differance in depth.(more pressure less sinking)

3. Concentration of earth particles & polluted substances in Sea water near & far of beach.(more concentration less sinking)

4. Differance in atmospheric pressure near & far of beach on ship(may be more on deep sea due to more openness leading it to sink more).

[xouper]

Kumar: Thanks for doing hard work.You're welcome. And thanks go to 69dodge and Terry also for the same hard work, even though they didn't show it all.

I think we can not take visual capability to see complete & clear ship more then 1/2 Kms.I think we can. When I used to hang out at the beach in Fort DeSoto, Florida, we could easily see the freighters coming out of Tampa Bay under the Sunshine Skyway Bridge (which was about 8 km away) and then watch them disappear west over the horizon into the Gulf of Mexico.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Skeptoid
I'd like to know the slope of Kumar's forehead. :D What forehead?

[Kumar]

xouper,

Pls see the previous message as I edited a bit.

There can be a differance in looking the ship (just an impression) coming ( from the fort/lighthouse Or from the beach) & look whole ship clearly to find out or measure its invisibility/sinking due to earth's slope.

[xouper]

Kumar: 1. Height of Sea Waves.(.5 to 3 M)If the waves are 3 meters that far out (8 kilometers), then it's simply not a good day to be at the beach watching ships.

2. Differance in water pressure on ship near the beach & in deep Sea due to differance in depth.(more pressure less sinking)

3. Concentration of earth particles & polluted substances in Sea water near & far of beach.(more concentration less sinking)

4. Differance in atmospheric pressure near & far of beach on ship(may be more on deep sea due to more openness leading it to sink more).I hope you aren't suggesting these as possible explanations for why a ship disappears over the horizon.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Kumar
2. Differance in water pressure on ship near the beach & in deep Sea due to differance in depth.(more pressure less sinking)Difference in depth? That doesn't matter at all. The ship is always on the surface. It doesn't know how deep the water is. As long as there's enough water to float it, that's all it cares about.4. Differance in atmospheric pressure near & far of beach on ship(may be more on deep sea due to more openness leading it to sink more).I can't imagine atmospheric pressure differs significantly. And, anyway, it wouldn't matter. If the air pushed down harder on the ship, it would also push down harder on the water. So, no difference in the ship's height above the water level.

[BillyJoe]

While he runs a perfect circle
And he wears a perfect smile.....

His score is a perfect zero.

BillyJoe
(And the Earth is still round)

[Kumar]

SquishyDave: Hmmm, as I understand it, to experience this personally requires you to find an ocean, find a sail boat, or at least a boat with a tall mast or structure, get some good binoculars or a telescope on a tripod, watch as the boat sails away, and see the bottom of the boat disappear before the top of the mast.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xouper: This effect can be experienced with the naked eye, no telescope or binoculars required. What we experiance of the bottom of the boat disappear before the top of the mast, can be due above mentioned effects also.

Conclusion: Any theory, system or therapy can be doubted & disapproved in this manner wheteher that is 'Science or Homeopathy or other Sprituals'. Do give respect to all long existing systems or things like the ancesstor's work.

[BillyJoe]

O

[xouper]

Kumar: What we experiance of the bottom of the boat disappear before the top of the mast, can be due above mentioned effects also.If you are referring to the effects you posted and labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4, then, no, they do not explain how a ship can disappear over the horizon. When a ship goes over the horizon, it vanishes completely from sight. In order for your explanations to apply, the ship would have to be completely under water in order to disappear from sight. And this clearly does not happen. Your proposed explanations are simply nonsense and do not hold up to even the simplest scrutiny (not to mention being seriously flawed scientifically).

[BillyJoe]

You are too long-winded, xouper, just type zero.

BillyJoe.

[Kumar]

Xouper,

I do not mean ship disappear in horizon. I mean that we can see the ship clear & sharp just 1/2 Km unabling us to watch its bottom from the naked eyes. If we agree on slope per Km as 8 Cms then bottom of the ship will be invisible just 8/16 cms. But this much invisibility can be effected by other factors as I mentioned.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Kumar
I do not mean ship disappear in horizon. I mean that we can see the ship clear & sharp just 1/2 Km unabling us to watch its bottom from the naked eyes. If we agree on slope per Km as 8 Cms then bottom of the ship will be invisible just 8/16 cms. But this much invisibility can be effected by other factors as I mentioned.How did you arrive at the distance of 1 or 2 km? Ships are pretty big, so you can see them from farther away than that.

[xouper]

Kumar: I do not mean ship disappear in horizon.Well, that's what the rest of us are talking about. Ships disappearing over the horizon is the proof you asked about that the Earth is round. Ships do literally disappear completely from sight after going a small number of kilometers away from the observer.

I mean that we can see the ship clear & sharp just 1/2 Km unabling us to watch its bottom from the naked eyes. If we agree on slope per Km as 8 Cms then bottom of the ship will be invisible just 8/16 cms.We did not agree that the slope is 8 cm per kilometer. We only agreed that the slope at one kilometer is 8 cm. At other distances the slope is different. For example, the slope at 20 kilometers is not 8 cm.


[note for math pedants - yes I am using the word slope incorrectly, since I am willing to make allowances for Kumar's intended meaning rather than argue about the jargon.]

[The Don]

Sadly Kumar may be on to something, the inability to see the bottom of a ship could conceivably be due to diffraction like a mirage. This is if course as likely as it being due to the slope in the ocean, which of course would be sloped due to gravitational attraction in a flat earth scenario, unless of course gravitational attraction is nothing to do with mass.

[The Don]

Originally posted by xouper

We did not agree that the slope is 8 cm per kilometer. We only agreed that the slope at one kilometer is 8 cm. At other distances the slope is different. For example, the slope at 20 kilometers is not 8 cm.



A rule of thumb used by my dad in the navy which, if you can be bothered to do the maths works out to be a pretty close approximation is:

distance to horizon in miles approx = square root (height above sea level in feet)

thus something 70 feet tall would just be visible by someone 8 miles away (assuming their eyeline is 5ft above sea level)

[The Don]

workings out as follows.....

height - h
distance - d
radius of earth - r

(r+h)^2 = r^2 + d^2 [pythagoras]

r^2 +2rh + h^2 = r^2 + d^2

d^2 = h^2 +2rh

assuming that h (height of observer) is << than r (radius of earth), a fair assumption in most shipwatching circumstances)

d^2 approx.= 2rh

d = (2x3963(miles)x5280(feet) x h)^0.5

d = 6469 * h^0.5 (number of feet in mile = 5280 so as first order approx)

d(miles) = h^0.5 (feet)

someone with (even) more time than I has worked out some values using a less simplistic derivation...

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jlb8e/puzzlers/elevation.htm

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Kumar
What we experiance of the bottom of the boat disappear before the top of the mast, can be due above mentioned effects also.

Conclusion: Any theory, system or therapy can be doubted & disapproved in this manner wheteher that is 'Science or Homeopathy or other Sprituals'. Do give respect to all long existing systems or things like the ancesstor's work.

Uh... Kumar. You can't come up with goofy solutions (that don't work either), say they work, and then say because of that anything else you say works. That's not how science really works.

You see... I was asking people to prove to an idiot that the Earth was round.... not a normal person.

A normal person can see pictures of Earth from these things we call "satellites". Now this is beyond our common sense proofs, the use of shadows to show it, the fact that all other large objects in our solar system are spherical, etc.

And the simple statement that if I start here, I can fly all the way around the Earth and back to the point where I started.

The evidence (to a normal person, not an idiot) that the Earth is round is overwhelming.

The evidence that homeopathy or some of these other fanctiful ideas of yours are true is very close to NIL (in fact, there's good evidence the other way).

This is not because scientists HOPE the evidence will come out this way. It is because that is the way reality works.

But, of course, I'm arguing with an idiot so nevermind.

[Kumar]

You can speak in a language taught to him. Get me the result of following mentioning first & then talk:-

Some experiments to check homeopathic efficiency;

1. Go to a homeopth when sick, keep faith in it & experiments the remedies.

2. Slect some 4 biggest idiots among many idiots. Send them each towords four directions all over the earth, give them one/few big note books with pens. Ask them to visit all homeopathic clinics & ask only few question from the available patients as under:-

(a) Why they came there, when so much publicity contrary to homeopathy, don't you believe in scientific findings?

(b) If you take homeopathic treatment, if yes since how many years?

(c) Are you satisfied & healthy with the treatments?

(d) Do you get adverse or side effects?

(e) How much you spend on this treatment?

(f) Do the homeopath attend properly & gives sufficient time or not?

(g) Do you feel natural repulsion to visit here or not?

(h) Remarks.......

If the earth is round as you say then they will reach to the same point after some time. They can also take planes, vehicles etc if can afford. When they come back then average the results. If it is more than 50% it means homeopathy works otherwise not.

Then you again send them to all the directions with note books & pens to genral public with following simple questions:-

(a) Wheter you have seen full earth by naked eye in my style?

(b) If above awnser is yes! then if it is round or flat??

Just simple experiments which an idiot can also do

[DickK]

On a flat, round earth, say, with the same surface area (on one side only please) as the spherical earth's surface area (~200,000,000 sq. miles), then require that the density and volume of the flat and spherical earths be equal, then the depth of the flat earth, given its area of ~200,000,000 sq. miles, would be ~1350 miles, given a spherical earth's volume of ~270 billion cubic miles.

How would this flat earth's gravity act upon us? If I'm standing near the edge, would I be able to stand, but be forced to counter a lean toward the centre? Would water cascade off the edge or flood inexorably toward the centre. Is the earth a cheesy economy flipper, with us on one side and all the homeopaths on the other, or is it single-sided deluxe DVD pressing with 6.1 channel DTS?

I have read Discworld, but for the purpose of this post, the Great Atuin and the Elephants are "resting" and their mass is this not a component.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by xouper
Here's a commonly used rule of thumb for estimating the distance it takes for a ship to disappear over the horizon. This distance is the sum of the ship's local horizon and the viewer's local horizon. To estimate the local horizon in miles, take the square root of the height above water in feet and multiply by 1.25

That's a pretty nice formula.

<applet codebase="http://home.att.net/~phildonnics/Phil/PJP/Graph" archive="jar.jar" code="phil.grapher.GrapherApplet" width="450" height="300" ID="Object1" VIEWASTEXT>
<param name="left" value="-2">
<param name="right" value="200">
<param name="top" value="30">
<param name="bottom" value="-0.3">
<param name="function1" value="1.25 sqrt(x)">
<param name="color1" value="0000ff">
<param name="function0" value="3947acos(3947/(3947+x/5280))">
<param name="color0" value="ff0000">
</applet>

xouper's formula: 1.25 sqrt(x)
exact formula: 3947 acos (3947/(3947+h/5280))

[TillEulenspiegel]

Experiment:
Place a piece of poster board on a flat surface, now using a large compass draw a circle using as much of the width of the board as you can. Cut the circle out and either paint a representation of the earth or a picture of the earth on the circle. Now take a razor knife and cut a radius line from the center to any point on the circumference of the circle. Now place one edge of the cut under the other edge and slide them together until the circle becomes a cone. Tape the outer edge. Place it on your head and go sit in a corner.

[xouper]

The Don:
d = 6469 * h^0.5 (number of feet in mile = 5280 so as first order approx)

d(miles) = h^0.5 (feet)Yes, as a first approximation. :)

Since 6469 / 5280 is about 5/4, that's what I used in my previous post:

d (miles) = 5/4 * h^0.5 (feet)

Also, you have to compute this for both the height of the object, and the height of your eyeballs, and then add them.

Accounting for atmospheric defraction, it is actually more like 4/3 * h^0.5 feet.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Kumar
If the earth is round as you say then they will reach to the same point after some time. They can also take planes, vehicles etc if can afford. When they come back then average the results. If it is more than 50% it means homeopathy works otherwise not.

The answer is 100% of the ships which sail on the oceans can sail all the way around the Earth. A great many of them DO.

Then you again send them to all the directions with note books & pens to genral public with following simple questions:-

(a) Wheter you have seen full earth by naked eye in my style?

(b) If above awnser is yes! then if it is round or flat??

Just simple experiments which an idiot can also do

RADAR pictures of the Earth show it as SPHERICAL, having depth in all 3 dimensions. Topographic pictures of Earth show it as SPHERICAL, having depth in all 3 dimensions.

The satellites that take the pictures could not do so unless the Earth were a sphere. Gravity wouldn't function as it does unless the Earth is a sphere.

By the way, whether the Earth is a sphere or not has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF HOMEOPATHY.

It just has to do with how completely and utterly your lack of knowledge of science goes.

[Kumar]

Whatever you have mentioned are just the observations in your style which is not understoodable to the majority of the world populations. Homeopathy is also based on observations.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Kumar
Whatever you have mentioned are just the observations in your style which is not understoodable to the majority of the world populations. Homeopathy is also based on observations.

As were the spontainious generation of rats from haystacks in the middle (dark?) ages.

[Kumar]

Attention all,

I assume that the slope of the earth will be 0.63662998955907156051722753192515 kms
(apprx. 636.6metres) on travelling 1km on earth if it is round.I am sorry to mention the same.

[Terry]

Originally posted by Kumar
Attention all,

I assume that the slope of the earth will be 0.63662998955907156051722753192515 kms
(apprx. 6366metres) on travelling 1km on earth if it is round.I am sorry to mention the same.

okay, but I'm not going on any ships with you as the navigator.

--Terry.

[The Don]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs


By the way, whether the Earth is a sphere or not has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF HOMEOPATHY.

It just has to do with how completely and utterly your lack of knowledge of science goes.

Not wishing to defend Kumar but......

I think what Kumar was seeking to demontrate is how difficult it is to demonstrate to someone who doesn't really understand science, something as "obvious" as the fact that the Earth is basically spherical.

He was then stretching the example by refuting the evidence and undermining the tests being proposed by providing "alternative" explanations of the observed phenomena and/or rubbishing the tests.

Now let's take the case for homeopathy. There is nowhere near the level of global acceptance for the validity/invalidity of homeopathy as there is for the sphericalness (well it is a word now dammit!) of the earth. The great difficulty is that many of hte people who support homeopathy do so because of direct or anecdotal experience of its supposed effects.

Designing a test, the results of which they cannot deny is very difficult. Something which looks emminently fair to someone with a grounding in conducting medical trials, looks like attacking some deeply held belief if you aer a supporter of homeopathy. The exasperation that the scientist feels in not being able to get the believer to accept the validity of the test is the same that the believer feels in not being able to get the scientist to understand the "obvious" fact that homeopathy works.

The spoiling tactics Kumar adopts are here to prepare everyone for the battle ahead. Thank you Kumar


BTW Homeopathy is utter, utter b0110x




edited to start to correct awful typing

[Kumar]

Zep & others,

Please take it as 636.6 metres not 6366 metres. Just think, because I am unable to think at present by finding this calculation. It seems my calculator is giving wrong calculations. I taken formula as: E.Radius divided by 1/4th of E.circumfrance i.e 6378.1/10018.15 = 0.6366 Kms. It may mean If we tavel 1 km on round earth surface we will go deep by 0.6366 Km OR 636.6 metres. We can also take it as: to cover 6378.1 depth(slope i.e. maximum depth eqv. to radius) we have to travel a distance of 10018.15 Kms on round plain earth surface or at Sea surface.

I could not understand how it is coming like that. Pls do clarify. :(

[The Don]

Reason for this is that the earth is spherical. The value you got was an average over the whole 1/4 turn.

Your first km from your starting point is almost all alongways and hardly donward at all. Your last km is almost all downward and hardly alongways at all.

you have to do all your caluclations with respect to your starting point

[Kumar]

11.05.2003:
Just to play along...


What is the slope of a tennis-ball?
----

Oh, I don't expect to "win." I just want to see how far we can ride this particular hobby-horse
-------
Kumar, I had an outstanding question for you that I will repeat: What is the slope of a tennis-ball. Care to answer? Seriously.
-------
No, I'm asking you, not them. Your results will help form my answer. Go find a tennis ball and measure it for me, please. A cricket or hockey or baseball or something of that size will be just as sufficient.

11.6.2003:
Will you actually do this and report back to us all what "slope" you measure for one of these objects? Not just sit there in front of a computer and waffle on? Yes?
---------
If he wants to continue to play this silly game then he can go do what I ask for a change. Thank you for restating his question sensibly, but the ball is definitely in HIS court.

Zep,

You have posted the above quotes in this topic. Can you please tell your real intention behind these postings! Seriously Pls?

[Kumar]

Don,

Thanks. But it is not clear to me. Suppose just assume a tenis ball as earth. Draw two line from the center point(inside centre) at 90 degree angle towards its surfaces. Each of 2 lines will be equal to the radius of ball say X. Now count the distance from say point A to point B where these two lines ends at earth surface say Y. Is it not correct that we have to travel 'Y' distance to cover the depth of 'X' . Or we have to travel 1/4th of E.circumference of earth to cover a depth eq. to radius?

[The Don]

Distance travelled = pi * 2 * radius(r) / 4

Distance travelled horizontally (hotizonal component) - r

Distance travelled vertially (vertical component) - r

"average" slope = 2/pi

But this slope only has meaning in the original frame of reference (with respect to your starting point). When you're half way 'round your quarter turn, you are moving on a 45 degree downslope with respect to your original direction of travel.

[Kumar]

Your first km from your starting point is almost all alongways and hardly donward at all. Your last km is almost all downward and hardly alongways at all. Don,
thanks for explaining. How then we are able to travel near to last km which is almost downword. It means we will not be able to see a ship from a distance of 1 km. at this last km point because it will be almost downward.

[BillyJoe]

Well, if you spit into the sun only one thing can happen. ;)

[Ladewig]

One last effort at the world's sphericalness. One could get a powerful telescope and demonstrate that all objects visible in the solar system are three dimensional and anything as large or larger than a moon is pretty much spherical. This is more inductive than deductive logic so the value of the "proof" is limited, but it may convince the casual observer.

As for the homeopathy, asking a homeopath to distinguish between two or more preparations made by him or herself would show a fatal flaw.

[BillyJoe]

Ladewig,

No, they all represent by flat plates and turning towards us.
If you cannot prove your case, just try.

Kumar.

[Ladewig]

No, they all represent by flat plates and turning towards us.

I left out the part about showing the rotation of all these bodies and showing that following a single point across the face of a body (sunspot, geological feature) shows that it appears to travel fastest across the middle and slower near the edges (as points on spheres do). The shadows being curved also indicates sphericalness. (very evident on the moon). The timing of the transits of Jupiter's moons through the planets shadow also provides evidence of Jupiter's being a sphere. The rings of Saturn (and their varying views) are exceptionally difficult to explain using the flat disc theory.

The method does have a flaw, however. The person could say that just because all those are spheres does not provide proof that the Earth is a sphere.

Also, anyone who says that every space photo of the earth is a doctored hoax probably would discount anything seen through a telescope because the device might be rigged to show what the inventor wants it to show.

[pupdog]

Can the Coriolis force be explained in the absence of a round Earth?

Would our knowledge of the configuration of the interior of the Earth gained through seismology, be rendered far more complicated (or impossible) if the Earth were flat?

How would geostationary satellites work with a flat Earth?

How would one explain the timing and distribution of sea tides and Earth tides if the Earth were flat?

Would I have to reprogram my GPS for a flat geometry?

Would great circle routes be found to be longer than people thought?

Would calculations for the precession of the equinoxes have to be redone?

et cetera, &c., &c.

[TillEulenspiegel]

OOOh! Ohhh! I forgot .......... ( I don't know is someone raised this , I stopped reading the thread as it's stoopit)
the proof is in the sky tonight
Look at the shadow of the earth on the moon during the eclipse tonight. I live in souht florida and I am able to see it as I look out my window. The aussie's will have a better view.

[Zep]

Originally posted by xouper
If you are referring to the effects you posted and labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4, then, no, they do not explain how a ship can disappear over the horizon. When a ship goes over the horizon, it vanishes completely from sight. In order for your explanations to apply, the ship would have to be completely under water in order to disappear from sight. And this clearly does not happen. Your proposed explanations are simply nonsense and do not hold up to even the simplest scrutiny (not to mention being seriously flawed scientifically). You are starting to catch on, Xouper. It doesn't get any better from here, BTW...

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Zep & others,

Please take it as 636.6 metres not 6366 metres. Just think, because I am unable to think at present by finding this calculation. It seems my calculator is giving wrong calculations. I taken formula as: E.Radius divided by 1/4th of E.circumfrance i.e 6378.1/10018.15 = 0.6366 Kms. It may mean If we tavel 1 km on round earth surface we will go deep by 0.6366 Km OR 636.6 metres. We can also take it as: to cover 6378.1 depth(slope i.e. maximum depth eqv. to radius) we have to travel a distance of 10018.15 Kms on round plain earth surface or at Sea surface.

I could not understand how it is coming like that. Pls do clarify. :( My request to you, STILL NOT ANSWERED by the way, was to go find the slope of a tennis ball or a cricket ball or a hockey ball. Have you done that? Where is that answer?

Until then, why are you bothering me with your mystical numbers from a broken calculator? If that is where they are coming from?

[Zep]

Originally posted by The Don
Reason for this is that the earth is spherical. The value you got was an average over the whole 1/4 turn.

Your first km from your starting point is almost all alongways and hardly donward at all. Your last km is almost all downward and hardly alongways at all.

you have to do all your caluclations with respect to your starting point Pearls before swine...

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar


Zep,You have posted the above quotes [repeated request for the "slope of a tennis ball"] in this topic. Can you please tell your real intention behind these postings! Seriously Pls? I want you to perform a calculation that will express in one number the slope of a tennis ball. Show us your workings, how you arrived at that calculation and number. Is that so hard to understand?

[Skeptoid]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
OOOh! Ohhh! I forgot .......... ( I don't know is someone raised this , I stopped reading the thread as it's stoopit)
the proof is in the sky tonight
Look at the shadow of the earth on the moon during the eclipse tonight. I live in souht florida and I am able to see it as I look out my window. The aussie's will have a better view.
The Aussies were unable to see this eclipse at all. It was mid-day there.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Kumar
How then we are able to travel near to last km which is almost downword. It means we will not be able to see a ship from a distance of 1 km. at this last km point because it will be almost downward.It's downward relative to a point 90 degrees away. It's not downward relative to a point just 1 km away; relative to a point that close, it has the very small slope of 16 cm / km, which is nearly horizontal.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Skeptoid

The Aussies were unable to see this eclipse at all. It was mid-day there.

D'OH! (_8-(o) forgot about the time difference

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I left out the part about showing the rotation of all these bodies Discs can be rotating as well.

Originally posted by Ladewig
and showing that following a single point across the face of a body shows that it appears to travel fastest across the middle and slower near the edges. Remember the lesson of the triangle. The light travel longer on the longer side.

Originally posted by Ladewig
The shadows being curved also indicates sphericalness. Curvy hills can giving the shadows like that.

Originally posted by Ladewig
The timing of the transits of Jupiter's moons through the planets shadow also provides evidence of Jupiter's being a sphere. If the moons are dics that would do as well.

Originally posted by Ladewig
The rings of Saturn are exceptionally difficult to explain using the flat disc theory. They are contrary discs like the planets. That is not difficult to the underastanding

Originally posted by Ladewig
The method does have a flaw, however. The person could say that just because all those are spheres does not provide proof that the Earth is a sphere. The bag of black jellybeans might keep a green baby happy. ;)

Originally posted by Ladewig
Also, anyone who says that every space photo of the earth is a doctored hoax probably would discount anything seen through a telescope because the device might be rigged to show what the inventor wants it to show. Yes, a person must verify directly what might be wrong

Kumar.

[Kumar]

Zep,
My request to you, STILL NOT ANSWERED by the way, was to go find the slope of a tennis ball or a cricket ball or a hockey ball. Have you done that? Where is that answer? I think I already mentioned. The average slope will be the same as I mentiond i.e. 0.6366 per unit.

69 dodge: It's downward relative to a point 90 degrees away. It's not downward relative to a point just 1 km away; relative to a point that close, it has the very small slope of 16 cm / km, which is nearly horizontal.

Is it not all confusing?

[Zep]

Kumar,

You posted this post:Originally posted by Kumar
Zep,
I think I already mentioned. The average slope will be the same as I mentiond i.e. 0.6366 per unit.
and this one:
Originally posted by Kumar Attention all,

I assume that the slope of the earth will be 0.63662998955907156051722753192515 kms
(apprx. 636.6metres) on travelling 1km on earth if it is round.I am sorry to mention the same.Where did you get this number from? Will you show your workings that arrived at this number? Have you done any workings at all on this? Is this the information you intend using to calculate the slope of a tennis ball?

[Kumar]

Zep,

Just read the previous posts. I mentioned the calculation i.e. radius/ 1/4th of circumfrance.

The above consideration of slope can be if we move from north towords south i.e along with longitude lines. What wll happen if we move alongwith latitude lines?

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Kumar
Is it not all confusing?It can be confusing, I guess. I think I understand it pretty well. If I've said something that you don't understand, feel free to ask for clarification. Try to be specific; tell me exactly what the problem is.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Kumar
The above consideration of slope can be if we move from north towords south i.e along with longitude lines. What wll happen if we move alongwith latitude lines?Spheres are spherically symmetric. Any direction is the same as any other.

On the other hand, lines of latitude aren't great circles, except for the equator, so they're not exactly like lines of longitude. But that's because they're curved, not because one direction is different from another.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Zep,

Just read the previous posts. I mentioned the calculation i.e. radius/ 1/4th of circumfrance.

The above consideration of slope can be if we move from north towords south i.e along with longitude lines. What wll happen if we move alongwith latitude lines? OK, if you are quite certain that this is the correct formula and you can do calculations, what is so hard about calculating the slope of a tennis ball as a single number? Or a cricket ball?

What is the answer, please? Will you tell me?

69dodge, don't help him, please. This exercise is for Kumar to work out the problems entirely by himself.

[Kumar]

69dodge,

If we look at a model of earth(round). we can see that there is a great slope from North Pole to Equator's last point on surface. So if we walk from NP along with longitude line upto the center point we have to cover more distance than the radius which looks like a big slope. If we walk along with latitude lines, there is minimal slope(i.e. just the bending of the earth).

69dodge, don't help him, please. This exercise is for Kumar to work out the problems entirely by himself.

Zep,

Ok, I will find out myself. Till then 'Earth will remain Flat' as per my justifications.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
69dodge,

If we look at a model of earth(round). we can see that there is a great slope from North Pole to Equator's last point on surface. So if we walk from NP along with longitude line upto the center point we have to cover more distance than the radius which looks like a big slope. If we walk along with latitude lines, there is minimal slope(i.e. just the bending of the earth).

Umm, yeah? Care to draw a picture of this?

Zep,

Ok, I will find out myself. Till then 'Earth will remain Flat' as per my justifications. Will you answer my question? What is the slope of a tennis ball? Do you agree you have a formula that you said applies to all spheres? Do you agree it should be VERY SIMPLE to do this according to your formula? If so, what is the answer, please? Will you post it here any time soon?

[xouper]

Kumar: If we look at a model of earth(round). we can see that there is a great slope from North Pole to Equator's last point on surface. So if we walk from NP along with longitude line upto the center point we have to cover more distance than the radius which looks like a big slope. If we walk along with latitude lines, there is minimal slope(i.e. just the bending of the earth).I may be going out an a limb here, but I'm willing to venture the supposition that the above explanation wouldn't even pass a Turing test.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Rocky -- your proof is simple yet elegant. I really like the 'travel until the stars change' idea. May I abscond with that one for commentary/discussion at the astro society meeting next week?

http://www.unavowed.net/charlie/LSPR03/GeminiSeney.jpg

Kumar -- you're Gene Ray, the Time Cube guy (http://www.timecube.com/), ain't ya? Everybody else, go look -- the general command of the English language is suspiciously similar, not to mention the overall unscientific behavior and overwhelming trollishness...

[Kumar]

AboveGod
Your father was a fish. You evolved from an egg laid in water, fertilized by a sperm fish swimming upstream - just as salmon swim up stream to fertilize female egg laid in the water.
Maybe, you should worship a fish god.



Intermediate knowledge . Why don't we learn like this, scientific?

[Zep]

Kumar?Will you answer my question? What is the slope of a tennis ball? Do you agree you have a formula that you said applies to all spheres? Do you agree it should be VERY SIMPLE to do this according to your formula? If so, what is the answer, please? Will you post it here any time soon?

[Zep]

Originally posted by xouper
I may be going out an a limb here, but I'm willing to venture the supposition that the above explanation wouldn't even pass a Turing test. Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this! Looks more like a primitive random phrase generator...

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Kumar
If we look at a model of earth(round). we can see that there is a great slope from North Pole to Equator's last point on surface. So if we walk from NP along with longitude line upto the center point we have to cover more distance than the radius which looks like a big slope. If we walk along with latitude lines, there is minimal slope(i.e. just the bending of the earth).I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but I think the most appropriate response is still, "spheres are spherically symmetric."

If you gave me a model of the earth (a globe), and I painted it completely white and gave it back to you, would you be able to say where the North Pole was, or where the equator was?

[Zep]

Originally posted by 69dodge
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but I think the most appropriate response is still, "spheres are spherically symmetric."

If you gave me a model of the earth (a globe), and I painted it completely white and gave it back to you, would you be able to say where the North Pole was, or where the equator was? Are you expecting a SERIOUS answer to this from Kumar?

[Kumar]

If you gave me a model of the earth (a globe), and I painted it completely white and gave it back to you, would you be able to say where the North Pole was, or where the equator was? 69 dodge,

But why we should do it when poles & equaters exists as per your theories.

Zep,

You are asking same irrelavant question again & again, which is already awnsered by me. I have given slopes & calculations as a common man(like me) can understand & explain. I got this type of measurement of any round thing like your earth. If you have any other calculation which a common man can understand then pls post it here otherwise just accept my views.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Kumar
But why we should do it when poles & equaters exists as per your theories.I'm sorry. What were we discussing again? I've lost track.

[BillyJoe]

All,

Originally posted by Kumar
If we look at a model of earth(round). we can see that there is a great slope from North Pole to Equator's last point on surface. So if we walk from NP along with longitude line upto the center point we have to cover more distance than the radius which looks like a big slope. If we walk along with latitude lines, there is minimal slope(i.e. just the bending of the earth).Okay, I was imitating Kumar with my last few posts but I can't do it anymore......

BillyJoe

[Kumar]

69dodge,

I'm sorry. What were we discussing again? I've lost track. Discussing again is related to Zep question about tenis ball.

BJ,Originally posted by Ladewig :
Also, anyone who says that every space photo of the earth is a doctored hoax probably would discount anything seen through a telescope because the device might be rigged to show what the inventor wants it to show.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BJ: Yes, a person must verify directly what might be wrong



Yes, like homeopathic remedies.

[ingoa]

Maybe one should start a thread about the mathematics curriculum at whatever place KUMAR is. Phew!

Without the introduction to an interesting number named pi, he will never grasp the concept of a circle. A sphere is even another dimension away.

Kumar please give the names of your schools. Just to be sure not to hire somebody from there accidentally.

636m... My dear! Kumar you live on a small world...
Tip: walk ~1250 paces in a "straight" line. Turn around. Climbed the 600 m up... Living in the Himalaya, by chance? :hit:

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Kumar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BJ: Yes, a person must verify directly what might be wrong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, like homeopathic remedies. Seems I didn't do TOO badly imitating Kumar. :D

[Kumar]

Ingoa: 636m... My dear! Kumar you live on a small world...
Tip: walk ~1250 paces in a "straight" line. Turn around. Climbed the 600 m up... Living in the Himalaya, by chance?

I therefore surprise, how earth is round??
:D

[ingoa]

Originally posted by Kumar


I therefore surprise, how earth is round??
:D

I am not surprised. For somebody sleeping during sixth grade maths you "surprise" a lot. I really recommend to buy a mathematics book like this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764553240/qid=1068472030/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_3/103-2520695-1233448?v=glance&n=507846). Serioulsy. Your 636m a plain wrong. You are off by four orders of magnitude (look at previous calculations in this thread). To understand what I mean by that this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568842481/qid=1068472030/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/103-2520695-1233448?v=glance&n=507846) might be needed. :book:

On the wisdom of the ancestors... Yesterday I saw a feature in German TV about archeology in Egypt. Apparently the Egyptians believed that the Nile originates from the sweat of the Crocodile God. Gosh, they must have known something. It must have been a God because human sweat is salty and the Nile is not! :rolleyes:

[Deetee]

Kumar, I look to you for enlightenment-
If the earth is a disc, can you tell me which bits are on which side, and where the edge is? Is the edge smoothed, or sharp like a coin's edges? How thick is the earth disc?

[Kumar]

If the earth is a disc, can you tell me which bits are on which side, and where the edge is? Is the edge smoothed, or sharp like a coin's edges? How thick is the earth disc?

I don't know. I can't see as you people have seen or can see. But it looks flat to me & to most of the common public.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
OOOh! Ohhh! I forgot .......... ( I don't know is someone raised this , I stopped reading the thread as it's stoopit)
the proof is in the sky tonight
Look at the shadow of the earth on the moon during the eclipse tonight. I live in souht florida and I am able to see it as I look out my window. The aussie's will have a better view.

Hmm, I don't see how an invisible dragon taking a bite of the moon has any bearing on whether the earth is round or not.

[CurtC]

I originally thought this thread was a result of some statement in another thread about cancer, where it was asked how it could be proved that the Earth was not flat, as an excercise.

So is Kumar taking the devil's advocate position, just trying to make the point that proving a round Earth to an ignorant person would be difficult, or does it really believe that the Earth is flat? What's going on here?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by CurtC
I originally thought this thread was a result of some statement in another thread about cancer, where it was asked how it could be proved that the Earth was not flat, as an excercise.

So is Kumar taking the devil's advocate position, just trying to make the point that proving a round Earth to an ignorant person would be difficult, or does it really believe that the Earth is flat? What's going on here?
Precisely what I want to know. Except I think there's a short answer. Kumar is a troll.

(OK, you guys think it's obvious the earth is round (spherical). See how frustrating it is when I won't accept a single one of your carefully presented arguments! Now you know how it feels when you refuse to accept any of my careful and self-evident arguments proving that homoeopathy is effective - which I know with as much conviction as you know that the earth is spherical.)

That's all very well, but it completely ignores the validity or strength of the arguments on either side. The arguments that homoeopathy is delusional are pretty much as solid as the arguments that the earth is spherical, and anyone who is looking at the subject dispassionately (rather than mounting a believer-defence of an entrenched position) would have accepted that long ago on this forum. Good grief, even Steve Grenard finally capitulated on that one, which has to be some sort of a first.

Therefore, I'm now with those who conclude the reality of Kumar's trollishness.

Rolfe.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Zep,

You are asking same irrelavant question again & again, which is already awnsered by me. I have given slopes & calculations as a common man(like me) can understand & explain. I got this type of measurement of any round thing like your earth. If you have any other calculation which a common man can understand then pls post it here otherwise just accept my views. Why do you think I am asking the same "irrelevant" question? Surely you can you see that it is because you have not answered it? Shouldn't it be simple for you? Do you agree the question is extremely simple to answer? Didn't you say so yourself? Can we get an answer from you to my question any time soon?

Since the question IS so simple, and you say you have an answer but will not tell us, perhaps the REAL reason you don't tell us is because you realise now that you have no idea at all what you are talking about?

[Kumar]

Shouldn't it be simple for you? Do you agree the question is extremely simple to answer? Didn't you say so yourself?

It it is not so simple & common as I mentioned' then I doubt everything. Similarily, Homeopathy working may also not be so simple to prove in science.

Can we get an answer from you to my question any time soon?

No you can't get more then that which I already mentioned, because niether I know more than that nor I will justify any more if we do not justify other systems.

[Jim Lennox]

Kumar - Why do ships have look outs at the top of their masts?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Shouldn't it be simple for you? Do you agree the question is extremely simple to answer? Didn't you say so yourself?

It it is not so simple & common as I mentioned' then I doubt everything. Similarily, Homeopathy working may also not be so simple to prove in science.

Can we get an answer from you to my question any time soon?

No you can't get more then that which I already mentioned, because niether I know more than that nor I will justify any more if we do not justify other systems. OK, Kumar, is this a refusal to answer our questions of you about your own formula about how to calculate the "slope of a tennis ball"? Does this mean you cannot do even this simple mathematical task? Even by just showing your formula and workings again?

And, by implication, does it mean you agree you are actually unable or refuse to calculate the "slope" of any sphere at all?

If you will not show us any work on your part, just which formulae and calculations will you show us to support anything you are saying?

[Kumar]

Just refer previous replies.

[Zep]

Still ducking and weaving, Kumar?

Have you no good answers for the big, bad skeptics' really simple questions?

[jj]

Originally posted by Zep
Still ducking and weaving, Kumar?

Have you no good answers for the big, bad skeptics' really simple questions?

Zep, it was just a tangential remark, you know.

[Zep]

Originally posted by jj

Zep, it was just a tangential remark, you know. Indeed! But I do intend to keep the ball in his court at every opportunity.

[Kumar]

Hello Zep & others,

I like the following words under Zep signature.

Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist. Phillip K Dick

Like: Homeopathy, alternative systems, earth's shape etc.:D

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist. Phillip K Dick

Like: Homeopathy, alternative systems, earth's shape etc.:D
Except that more and more papers by homoeopaths are now concluding that homoeopathy only "works" if the participants believe in it.

Thoresen (http://vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/thoresen.html)
Walach (http://vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/walach.pdf)
Milgrom 1 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXX-471VFTY-8&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a51570419c8e03c6072e6b755a6c03de)
Milgrom 2 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXX-47MJXPV-6&_user=10&_handle=W-WA-A-A-AV-MsSAYWW-UUA-AUZZAVCVZA-BYUWUDVW-AV-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=6&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%237170%232003%23999079998%23375693!&_cdi=7170&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=20afca58a98c793f8a0dd3643b6d5b41)
Milgrom 3 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXX-490360P-8&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cd989c2b29f4c3b6a7d32f3cf3f0b36f)

This makes it MAGIC. OK, you believe in magic, Kumar. Fine. But don't expect research scientists to take you seriously.

Rolfe.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Hello Zep & others,

I like the following words under Zep signature.

Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist. Phillip K Dick

Like: Homeopathy, alternative systems, earth's shape etc.:D You do know that you have still not answered our questions here, Kumar? You are aware that we will not let them fade away just because you try to duck and weave and avoid answering them? And you do know what that makes you if you DON'T answer them?

Keeping to the subject of this thread, which is a thread at YOUR request, Kumar, I repeat: Are you refusing to answer our questions of you about your own formula about how to calculate the "slope of a tennis ball", a very small and very real sphere? Does this mean you cannot do even this simple mathematical task? Even by just showing your formula and workings again?

And, by implication, does it mean you agree you are actually unable or refuse to calculate the "slope" of any sphere at all? Such a simple and BASIC requirement to answer the question of this thread?

If you will not show us any work on your part, just which formulae and calculations will you show us to support anything you are saying?

[Kumar]

Rolfee,

This makes it MAGIC. OK, you believe in magic, Kumar. Fine. But don't expect research scientists to take you seriously. Homeopathy is not magic, although real magic is bigger then any other thing.

Zep,

I repeat as per my previous postings.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
Zep & others,

Please take it as 636.6 metres not 6366 metres. Just think, because I am unable to think at present by finding this calculation. It seems my calculator is giving wrong calculations. I taken formula as: E.Radius divided by 1/4th of E.circumfrance i.e 6378.1/10018.15 = 0.6366 Kms. It may mean If we tavel 1 km on round earth surface we will go deep by 0.6366 Km OR 636.6 metres. We can also take it as: to cover 6378.1 depth(slope i.e. maximum depth eqv. to radius) we have to travel a distance of 10018.15 Kms on round plain earth surface or at Sea surface.

I could not understand how it is coming like that. Pls do clarify. :(

I think this is Kumar's workings out. To travel "vertically" one earth radius you would have to travel 1/4 of the way around the world circumfrentially (or r*pi/2). This gives Kumar an "average" slope of 637 meters "vertically" down for every kilometer "horizontally" along the surface.

For some reason Kumar thinks that this should be linear.

Which I guess is where he ends up with the world being a cube. I tried without visual aids to demonstrate this but failed (even to my own miserable standards of satisfaction). I fear that Kumar will never get his head around it.

This is one of those occasions where a face to face explanation with much arm waving could work.

I am also about 99.99999999% sure Kumar is just yanking our collective chain

[Kumar]

This is one of those occasions where a face to face explanation with much arm waving could work.

Don,

Thanks. Face to face or physical explanation is a better/real proof alike looking earth face to face or physically instead through cameras,computers,calculations,formulas etc.

[The Don]

So what Kumar has (quite probably correctly) concluded is that there is no test that a person could conduct, by themselves, with simple equipment to demonstrate that the earth is spherical (or near enough to).

- All experiments involving watching ships could be invalidated if some crazy idea of refraction in the atmosphere.

- Any test requiring measuring the gravitiational force at any place would requi far too sensitive

- Any experiment involving getting in a plane and flying somewhere involves a plane, and anyway you could be flying across a disc illuminated by a partially shielded sun

So for someone who never leaves their own immediate locale, the earth could be considered functionally flat.

For anyone*really* saying that the earth is either flat or cubic, where are the edges ?

[Kumar]

All experiments involving watching ships

Don,

Ok just tell how a ship can be partly invisible if it travels along with lattitude lines i.e elevated horizontal , from east to west.

Any experiment involving getting in a plane and flying somewhere involves a plane, and anyway you could be flying across a disc illuminated by a partially shielded sun

Pls refer the experiments as mentioned by me. Btw, when we see throgh a window of plane at some 4-7 kms height, why we don't see the earth as convex. If we can see the ship's bottom shinking, we should also be able to see earth as convex shaped from the plane.

So for someone who never leaves their own immediate locale, the earth could be considered functionally flat.

May be. I am bit fearful of falling as on a ball, since when earth is declared as round.:D

For anyone*really* saying that the earth is either flat or cubic, where are the edges ?

I don't know exactly but may be Antartica, Alaska...so on.

[The Don]

Kumar,

Sorry, didn't understand your first question but I'll try to answer it anyway.

For spherical-earthers, it doesn't matter whether the ship is travelling north-south or travelling east-west the hull of the ship would eventually be rendered invisible by the curvature of the earth on the grounds that a sphere is perfectly symmetrical.

For flat or cube-earthers, the hull of the ship would be rendered invisible by the same mechanism at work in mirages

http://science.howstuffworks.com/mirage.htm

So a flat or cube-earther could conceivably try to explain away disappearing hulls

Second point:

I won't refer to your experiments on the grounds that I cannot remember what they are. However:

- You can see the earth's curvature through an aeroplane window as long as you fly high enough
- The experiment to which I was referring is "what time GMT does it get light in...." indicates that the sun moves around some kind of three dimensional shape

Please provide evidence of edges

[Kumar]

Mr.Don,

Thanks for explaining in details. I appreciate your work.

For spherical-earthers, it doesn't matter whether the ship is travelling north-south or travelling east-west the hull of the ship would eventually be rendered invisible by the curvature of the earth on the grounds that a sphere is perfectly symmetrical.

But this does not matches with the given dimentions & calculated average slopes of the earth.

For flat or cube-earthers, the hull of the ship would be rendered invisible by the same mechanism at work in mirages
So a flat or cube-earther could conceivably try to explain away disappearing hulls

What does it mean?

You can see the earth's curvature through an aeroplane window as long as you fly high enough

No it is not visible even from the 20-25000 feet height.

The experiment to which I was referring is "what time GMT does it get light in...." indicates that the sun moves around some kind of three dimensional shape
Please provide evidence of edges

I have already given my comments.

I am sorry Mr.Don, but I don't want to discourage furthur as all the awnser given to me are observational & calculations based which can never be physicals. The same is the case of homeopathy's existance. So I now conclude:

'Earth is round' or' homeopathy works' are both obsevational based by few & many respectively. We have to either accept the both or reject the both in this sense.

Thanks all for the contributions in never ending discussions as biased.
:)

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
'Earth is round' or' homeopathy works' are both obsevational based by few & many respectively. We have to either accept the both or reject the both in this sense.

Thanks all for the contributions in never ending discussions as biased.


With one tiny difference. In your nomencalture.....

Earth not flat and homeopathy a load of rubbish are both experimental based on many & many respectively. We have to either accept the both or reject the both in this sense.

[ingoa]

Okay, one last try.. :)
Why is the duration of a day (sunlight) dependent on your location on earth? Easy one for the spherer's but quite hard for the flater's. I am not talking about seasons.

The concept of latitude gives you immediately at least a cylindical earth. This should not be to difficult to understand. I tried it yesterday with my ten year old niece. She got it. :D

[Terry]

Originally posted by Kumar

For spherical-earthers, it doesn't matter whether the ship is travelling north-south or travelling east-west the hull of the ship would eventually be rendered invisible by the curvature of the earth on the grounds that a sphere is perfectly symmetrical.

But this does not matches with the given dimentions & calculated average slopes of the earth.

[...]

You can see the earth's curvature through an aeroplane window as long as you fly high enough

No it is not visible even from the 20-25000 feet height.



Must not feed troll... must not feed troll... aarrgh! I can't resist!

(1) The only reason the "slope" calculations don't work for you is that you are deliberately ignoring the fact that the "slope" is a function of your position relative to the point at which you want to measure the "slope". You want to assume that there is a single value for the "slope", which is equivalent to assuming the earth is flat! No wonder your sums don't work.

(2) Yes, you can see the earth's curve from an aeroplane. Matter of fact, if you look carefully and compare with a straight-edge, you can see the earth's curve from a small (20 metre) cliff by the seaside.

--Terry

edited to correct typo.

[Zep]

Kumar,

Do you understand what is being told to you by these people above? Do you accept ANY of what they are telling you? If not, why not?

Do you still want to use this below as your calculation of the slope of any sphere? Or perhaps just for the Earth?Kumar: Please take it as 636.6 metres not 6366 metres. Just think, because I am unable to think at present by finding this calculation. It seems my calculator is giving wrong calculations. I taken formula as: E.Radius divided by 1/4th of E.circumfrance i.e 6378.1/10018.15 = 0.6366 Kms. It may mean If we tavel 1 km on round earth surface we will go deep by 0.6366 Km OR 636.6 metres. We can also take it as: to cover 6378.1 depth(slope i.e. maximum depth eqv. to radius) we have to travel a distance of 10018.15 Kms on round plain earth surface or at Sea surface.

Can you look at these images and tell me if you think the horizon is curved or not? If not, why not?

http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/1522/students/angel/kokocrater.hike/koko4.jpg

http://www.fao.org/NEWS/GLOBAL/LOCUSTS/Aston/0111wksh/images/m6aa.jpg

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Our good friend Kumar has put forth a challenge - Prove the Earth is round.

Unfortunately, he added clauses like Prove the Earth is round "to an idiot".


Your friend Kumar is correct. You can't prove the Earth is round to an idiot.

[Kumar]

Hello all,
This should not be to difficult to understand. I tried it yesterday with my ten year old niece. She got it.

Ingoa, yes you can convince to ten year old like a story.

The only reason the "slope" calculations don't work for you is that you are deliberately ignoring the fact

Terry, same is the fact that you are deliberately ignoring other existing facts like homeopathy.

You can't prove the Earth is round to an idiot.

Pepto., alike I can't prove other systems like homeopathy to an idot.

Can you look at these images and tell me if you think the horizon is curved or not? If not, why not?

Dear Zep, horizon looks curved to me, may be due to visual limit.

Since when I read the following words under Mr. Zep's signature, I feel it useless to discuss furthur so Good bye in this topic:

Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist. Phillip K Dick: alike homeopathy & earth's shape. ;)

[ingoa]

Kumar
Ingoa, yes you can convince to ten year old like a story.

You didn't listen/read properly. I said she understood! It was HER idea that this test alone cannot distiguish between a sphere and a cylinder. If you cannot compete intellectually with a ten year old kid maybe you should start thinking about joining the Sesame Street Forum (http://forum.muppetcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12). The kids might be able to teach you something.

:rolleyes:

[Zep]

Has Kumar given up and gone away?


{holds cupped hand to ear...}













Hmmmm. Someone doesn't like to learn...

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Can you look at these images and tell me if you think the horizon is curved or not? If not, why not?

Dear Zep, horizon looks curved to me, may be due to visual limit.
Or because you can't abide that it actually IS, in defiance of your own assertions above. You tell us that we must believe homeopathy is real because you tell us you have seen it, and yet when we show you things that you CAN SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES you will not believe us. I wonder why not? Hmmmmmmm?

I'll let you answer that yourself, Kumar - I know you are still lurking here! And I'm quite happy to respond should you ever surface again. OK?

[Rolfe]

Given that this whole thing seems to be a metaphor, could I point out that it can be used just as well in reverse? (Better, in fact.)

The (spherical) shape of the earth and the non-existence of any demonstrable effect of homoeopathy are both equally factual and equally well supported by evidence. But if you are a complete blockhead (or a provocative troll) it is nevertheless possible to ignore and misrepresent the evidence, and so continue to occupy the false position.

Kumar's attempts to deny the shape of the earth are laughably similar to his attempts to deny that homoeopathy is delusional. No wonder he's doing so well ignoring the evidence and occupying the irrational position on this thread - he's had plenty practice.

Rolfe.

[The Don]

Sweet summary Rolfe

[BillyJoe]

Yeah but you just spoiled a good ending.

[Rolfe]

It's not the end. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30605)

Rolfe.

[Checkmite]

I don't know if anybody else has mentioned or caught this (as I haven't read the entire thread). However, "Kumar" gave us an opportunity to prove the curvature of the earth.

Kumar said:

Originally posted by Kumar

Ex.No 3; Take a aeroplane, take it to some 10000' high, see the earth is flat or round from its windows?

Good point - the horizon still looks flat.

Take the same airplane up to 30000' high (typical general cruising altitude for trans-Pacific 747 flights), and the curving of the horizon is plainly observable.

Q. What, besides the curve of the earth's surface, can account for this?

A. Nothing.

[BillyJoe]

Joshua,

That could just be an atmospheric thing.

Kumar.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Joshua,

That could just be an atmospheric thing.

Kumar.

If it were some sort of refractive property of the atmosphere, then the sun would also change shape as it traversed the sky. Fact is, it stays a bright round ball even as it nears the curved horizon as observed from FL300. That, coupled with the fact that many atmospheric effects are significantly lessened due to the thinness of the atmosphere at that altitude tend to rule out atmospheric illusions. If our friend insists that observations taken from an airplane at 10,000' can be accepted at face value, then he must allow that observations taken from FL300 may also be so used.

[Rolfe]

If you go back to the very first post, there appears to be some sort of prohibition on photographic evidence. I think in fact that Kumar originally claimed that photographs could be faked. Some nice photographic evidence was indeed later posted, but it's true, it would be quite easy to fake a curved horizon by judicious use of a suitable lens. You'd really have to take Kumar up there and show him with his own eyes.

I think DangerousBeliefs had the right idea in his original post.Beyond that, I'm thinking shooting Kumar into space might be the next best option.By the way, have you seen what he's up to now (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?x=y&board=science.headlines&mid=%3C1070101388-3308.3%40forum0.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&state=view&sort=Te)? Still running the "they used to think the earth was flat but now we know it's round" line as an argument in favour of homoeopathy. :con2:

Rolfe.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by shemp
Another proof: give the idiot a shovel and tell him to start digging in the U.S. If he pops up in China, the Earth is round.

This brings up a question: If the Earth is flat, what the hell is on the bottom side?

Four elephants on top of A'Tuin the Star Turtle....

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Diamond
Four elephants on top of A'Tuin the Star Turtle.... Huh? Isn't it turtles all the way down. :D

[BillyJoe]

Joshua,

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
If it were some sort of refractive property of the atmosphere, then the sun would also change shape as it traversed the sky. Fact is, it stays a bright round ball even as it nears the curved horizon.....http://www.nexus.hu/dvc/best/setting_sun_over_sf.jpg

You do not see distortion here?

Kumar.

[TillEulenspiegel]

"You can't prove the Earth is round to an idiot."
I can too! I know plenty of idiots that believe the earth is round.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Joshua,

http://www.nexus.hu/dvc/best/setting_sun_over_sf.jpg

You do not see distortion here?

Kumar.

That photograph is of San Francisco (Oakland is in the foreground), and was not taken at FL300, nor anywhere close to even 10000' ASL. In all likelihood it was taken from the top of one of the many hills surrounding the city.

The "wavering sun" and various other effects visible at or near ground level are noticably less prominent at 10000', and simply not visible at FL300. The effects are due to the (measurably) thicker atmosphere at ground level.

[BillyJoe]

Joshua,

But I have not been on a FL100 so you could be lying to me as far as I know; or you might not be seeing correctly or there may be any number of explanations.
I still think the Earth is flat.

Kumar.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Joshua,

But I have not been on a FL100 so you could be lying to me as far as I know; or you might not be seeing correctly or there may be any number of explanations.
I still think the Earth is flat.

Kumar.

FL100, or 10000', is an altitude you designated in an earlier post, which I have quoted above. You've assigned "the horizon as viewed from an airplane at 10000' " as something that would argue for a flat earth, and yet you object at "the horizon as viewed from an airplane at 30000' " as somehow "not good enough". This inconsistency is somewhat glaring.

Yes, I could be lying to you, but I'm not; since we're playing hypothetical games here...as soon as you take the "idiot" to 10000' and say "look, the horizon is flat", I can take the same idiot in the same airplane to 30000' and say "look, the horizon is curved".

I like the "any number of explanations" part, too - especially since you seem reluctant to define them. No, atmospheric distortion won't work - I've done that in already. Anything else? Perhaps not, since there are also "any number of explanations" why the horizon looks flat even though the earth is curved, so your argument can kind of be used against your position. You probably didn't anticipate that actual pilots and/or travelers might use this forum, but failure to anticipate isn't a crime, and neither is being wrong. Just chalk this one up to a "didn't work out" and try a different angle to your homeopathy argument.

[Zep]

Don't forget, JK, that BillyJoe is playing the part of Kumar tonight. The real Kumar has given up and has gone somewhere else to play his silly "I don't care what you say" games.

You may now laugh - it is funny.

[BillyJoe]

:cool:

[Kumar]

Joshua Korosi,

Nice photo. I could see the distortion. One bridge is concave & other is convax. Similarily the hill & other picture. But these can be Man made or local slopes.

It is unnecessary to continue these discussions in this topic by me as neither you can prove by physical viewing of earth as round from all dimentions to me & to more than 50% population which can be the real proof for me NOR I will accept the calculations,pictures or observations by few people unless you respect & accept the observations & experiances by many.

Most of the things can be moulded in any manner if backed by some vested interests.
;)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Most of the things can be moulded in any manner if backed by some vested interests.
;) Yup, and those who are making large amounts of money by selling shaken-up water will always find some way to "mould" the evidence so that they can go right on selling that shaken-up water.

Rolfe.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Joshua Korosi,

Nice photo. I could see the distortion. One bridge is concave & other is convax. Similarily the hill & other picture. But these can be Man made or local slopes.

It is unnecessary to continue these discussions in this topic by me as neither you can prove by physical viewing of earth as round from all dimentions to me & to more than 50% population which can be the real proof for me NOR I will accept the calculations,pictures or observations by few people unless you respect & accept the observations & experiances by many.

Most of the things can be moulded in any manner if backed by some vested interests.
;) Yes, Kumar - it's all made up to fool the great public! :)

[MRC_Hans]

Are you at this still? Anybody can, with simple means, ascertain that the Earth is round. But perhaps that is no longer the subject ?

:confused:


Hans

[BillyJoe]

Hans,

The question was: "Can you prove to a fool that the Earth is round?"
The answer was: "No."

Now we're just having some fun.

BillyJoe

[Kumar]

Hans,

The question was: "Can you prove to a fool that the Earth is round?"
The answer was: "No."

Now we're just having some fun.

Hans,

But the question is: " Can we prove to the ..... that homeopathy works?

The awnser is : " No."

We were always having just some fun.

Sorry, I could not mention the five words being we are bit sober & spritual.

I still like;

Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist. Phillip K Dick It means, if anything is existing since long then it is reality.


However, I lastly mentions here that:

" Do respect & believe others if you want to be believed & respected, because 'God' is in everyone "

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
Hans,

But the question is: " Can we prove to the ..... that homeopathy works?

The awnser is : " No."



I disagree, you were attempting to demonstrate that because we weren't willing to accept you rag-tag collection of anecdotes and half-baked "scientific" studies for homeopathy, we were unwilling ever to do so.

If you provide good quality evidence , I sure the majority of people here will believe it. This issue is that the quality of evidence has been universally poor.

[Rolfe]

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.

- David Hume.This is what Kumar is up against.

It's like Randi's goat - if he says, "I have a goat in my garden", and shows you a photo of a goat in a garden, you'd have no real reason to disbelieve him, and would probably not send a private eye down to his house to check he wasn't lying. However, if he says "I have a unicorn in my garden", and produces a photo of a unicorn in the garden, you'd put "faked photograph" a lot higher up the probability list than "real unicorn".

This is why Sir James Maddox sent Stewart and Randi to Benveniste's lab. Not that it was impossible that other contributors to Nature might have faked or fudged their results, but that because Benveniste's results were "miracle" then "fakery" was a more likely explanation than "real results".

We don't usually subject everything that looks like "good quality evidence" for a therapeutic claim to such detailed scrutiny, but we will always subject homoeopathic claims to such scrutiny, because homoeopathic claims are in the "miracle" class. Kumar thinks that this is unfair.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
Hans,

But the question is: " Can we prove to the ..... that homeopathy works?

The awnser is : " No."

Can we prove to anybody but a fool that homeopathy works?

We were always having just some fun.

Sorry, I could not mention the five words being we are bit sober & spritual.

I still like;

Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist. Phillip K Dick It means, if anything is existing since long then it is reality.

How do you reach that interpretation?? What is your definition of "exist".

However, I lastly mentions here that:

" Do respect & believe others if you want to be believed & respected, because 'God' is in everyone "

Respecting is not the same as believing. I per default respect others, but people must deserve believing.

Hans