Prove the Earth is round

xouper said:
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
Click to expand...

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

d(miles) = h^0.5 (feet)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kumar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Kumar said:
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.
Click to expand...

As were the spontainious generation of rats from haystacks in the middle (dark?) ages.
 
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.
 
Kumar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

--Terry.
 
DangerousBeliefs said:


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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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. :(
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

Zep,

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

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

Kumar.
 
No, they all represent by flat plates and turning towards us.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom