Show me the curve.

Rick Otto · Mar 14, 2017

You can't.

Rick Otto · Mar 14, 2017

How come there are no amateur photos of satellites?
How come we never hear about any of them being hit by debris ad tiny meteorites?
How come they say the earth is an oblate spheroid, but all the pictures of all the planets show round globes?

PinkDragon · Mar 14, 2017

They are too far.
Sound doesn't travel trough space.
Try using basic drawing tools to draw a circle then compare it to a picture of earth.

Also why if you lay down and see then sunset then quickly stand up you can see the same sunset again?

Fenny the Fox · Mar 16, 2017

Rick Otto said:
How come they say the earth is an oblate spheroid, but all the pictures of all the planets show round globes?

They actually aren't round globes, the issue is that without pretty good measurement, they will look so. Planets are oblate, due to physical phenomenon caused by the rotation about an axis, which causes the equator to be of a greater radius than the poles. But it is a fairly small difference. This is called the equatorial bulge.

For instance, the diameter of the Earth about the equator is roughly 12,756km, while the distance pole to pole is roughly 12,714km. An equatorial bulge of roughly 42km.

This is a very small difference, one that would be hard for the untrained eye to notice on a typical picture of the earth. And the difference would be most apparent if the picture were taken exactly above the equator, which is not always the case.

JackRT · Mar 16, 2017

Fenny the Fox said:
For instance, the diameter of the Earth about the equator is roughly 12,756km, while the distance pole to pole is roughly 12,714km. An equatorial bulge of roughly 42km.

This is a very small difference, one that would be hard for the untrained eye to notice on a typical picture of the earth. And the difference would be most apparent if the picture were taken exactly above the equator, which is not always the case.

True! In fact if the earth were reduced to the size of a ball bearing you would need a very sensitive micrometer to even detect the difference.

Rick Otto · Mar 18, 2017

Fenny the Fox said:
They actually aren't round globes, the issue is that without pretty good measurement, they will look so. Planets are oblate, due to physical phenomenon caused by the rotation about an axis, which causes the equator to be of a greater radius than the poles. But it is a fairly small difference. This is called the equatorial bulge.

For instance, the diameter of the Earth about the equator is roughly 12,756km, while the distance pole to pole is roughly 12,714km. An equatorial bulge of roughly 42km.

This is a very small difference, one that would be hard for the untrained eye to notice on a typical picture of the earth. And the difference would be most apparent if the picture were taken exactly above the equator, which is not always the case.

With all due respect, you just told me an oblate spheroid looks like a sphere "too an untrained eye".
I am a professional graphic artist. I can eyeball the difference between a 32nd and a 64th of an inch.
If it takes any more training to call a sphere oblate, I would have to guess that training to include hypnosis.
Not buying.

Rick Otto · Mar 19, 2017

JackRT said:
True! In fact if the earth were reduced to the size of a ball bearing you would need a very sensitive micrometer to even detect the difference.

Then then such a micro difference does not warrant calling it oblate. It is an absurdity call a sphere oblate because of a nearby undetectable difference.

JackRT · Mar 19, 2017

Rick Otto said:
Then then such a micro difference does not warrant calling it oblate. It is an absurdity call a sphere oblate because of a nearby undetectable difference.

Perhaps so to the ordinary man in the street. But these small differences do have an effect on satellite orbits and the accuracy of the Global Positioning System as well as the positioning of communications satellites.

pgp_protector · Mar 20, 2017

Rick Otto said:
How come there are no amateur photos of satellites?

amateur photos of ISS - Google Search
But of course they're all fake are't they.

Rick Otto said:
How come we never hear about any of them being hit by debris ad tiny meteorites?

An ESA Satellite Was Hit By Space Debris
Russian Satellite Hit by Chinese Anti-Satellite Test Debris
https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/6572hjpg?id=6572

Rick Otto said:
How come they say the earth is an oblate spheroid, but all the pictures of all the planets show round globes?

The equatorial diameter of the Earth is 12,756 km.
If you go from pole to pole through the center, the distance is only 12,713 km.
That's why.

Rick Otto · Mar 20, 2017

pgp_protector said:
amateur photos of ISS - Google Search
But of course they're all fake are't they.

An ESA Satellite Was Hit By Space Debris
Russian Satellite Hit by Chinese Anti-Satellite Test Debris
WFPC2

The equatorial diameter of the Earth is 12,756 km.
If you go from pole to pole through the center, the distance is only 12,713 km.
That's why.

Thanks for doing my homework. I'll check those out, wondering how the numbers break down against acknowledged totals...

Excepting the last detail, of trying to sell 43 miles as significant enough in proportion to circumference, to declare "oblate". I would be tempted to suspect that some defenders of that minute of a technicality, to be flirting with embracing irrationality,... with all due respect.
That said, I will dutifully click on your links with my vintage kindle, and take this opportunity to tell you how impressed I am with your civility and charity.
...Come to think of it, I remember you now as one of the few who have pretty much consistently extended me the grace of putting up with me without excessive eye rolling.
Good on you, protector!

Rick Otto · Mar 20, 2017

JackRT said:
True! In fact if the earth were reduced to the size of a ball bearing you would need a very sensitive micrometer to even detect the difference.

And yet...
we wouldn't be fooled, would we?
We would know that ball bearing was no ball at all... NO!
(dramatic pause...) It would be an oblate spheroid bearing!
Thanks for allowing that to amuse me, bro.

Rick Otto · Mar 20, 2017

Fenny the Fox said:
They actually aren't round globes, the issue is that without pretty good measurement, they will look so. Planets are oblate, due to physical phenomenon caused by the rotation about an axis, which causes the equator to be of a greater radius than the poles. But it is a fairly small difference. This is called the equatorial bulge.

For instance, the diameter of the Earth about the equator is roughly 12,756km, while the distance pole to pole is roughly 12,714km. An equatorial bulge of roughly 42km.

This is a very small difference, one that would be hard for the untrained eye to notice on a typical picture of the earth. And the difference would be most apparent if the picture were taken exactly above the equator, which is not always the case.

If my own equatorial bulge was that tiny in relation to my circumference,...
Do you not have any empathy for my dismissing this 42km as too insignificant to redefine the whole?
Doesn't it strike you as even the least bit counter-intuitive to redefine what is empirically obvious with a nearly imperceptible exception?

Rick Otto · Mar 20, 2017

pgp_protector said:
amateur photos of ISS - Google Search
But of course they're all fake are't they.

An ESA Satellite Was Hit By Space Debris
Russian Satellite Hit by Chinese Anti-Satellite Test Debris
https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/6572hjpg?id=6572

The equatorial diameter of the Earth is 12,756 km.
If you go from pole to pole through the center, the distance is only 12,713 km.
That's why.

Take a look at the curve issue for me.
I saw the St.Louis Arch from 50 miles away
It's 500ft tall, and I could see all the way down to where it went behind what was probably only 3 or 4 stories tall. I can't remember seeing the water next to it, though. That would've help nail measurement some, maybe.
Anyway, I was on a probably 200 ft bluff right up against the River, right next to Festus, MO., about 50 miles downriver.
According to the formulae though, it should be well below my horizon.
Have you seen the formula? Could you figure it out with a 25,000 mile circumference?
I hear it is 8" the first mile, and then starts squaring.

Fenny the Fox · Mar 20, 2017

Rick Otto said:
If my own equatorial bulge was that tiny in relation to my circumference,...
Do you not have any empathy for my dismissing this 42km as too insignificant to redefine the whole?
Doesn't it strike you as even the least bit counter-intuitive to redefine what is empirically obvious with a nearly imperceptible exception?

But it is not an exception. It is pretty well seen in most all planets and "spheroid" bodies in our solar system. Saturn being the most dramatic at over 11,000km (flattening ration of roughly 1:10, versus earth's ration of 1:298). It is a result of physical force of rotational energy, causing the equator to bulge under the speed of rotation.
Equatorial bulge - Wikipedia

"Imperceptible" is a relative term. It is "imperceptible" to the naked eye oftentimes, but not to measurement overall. And it is not insignificant.

Greyy · Mar 21, 2017

Rick Otto said:
Cute.
C'mon... do you want to be serious or not?
You wouldn't hesitate to instantly dismiss an equal number of YouTube videos debunking them... first.
Second, you again fail imaginatively, when disregarding proportions scaled up. Google's relationship with the various intelligence agencies is no different than with all mainstream medias.

Google owns youtube and hosts all the crazy flat earth videos anyone wants.

People have known the Earth is not flat for centuries. When Europeans first mapped the Earth as they explored it, they didn't make a flat Earth map. There isn't a massive conspiracy, there isn't anyone to start it, and there isn't a point to a massive conspiracy.

People are just nuts and have way too much time posting videos on the internet, which apparently can't be taken down by the massive conspiracy.

Rick Otto · Mar 21, 2017

Fenny the Fox said:
But it is not an exception. It is pretty well seen in most all planets and "spheroid" bodies in our solar system. Saturn being the most dramatic at over 11,000km (flattening ration of roughly 1:10, versus earth's ration of 1:298). It is a result of physical force of rotational energy, causing the equator to bulge under the speed of rotation.
Equatorial bulge - Wikipedia

"Imperceptible" is a relative term. It is "imperceptible" to the naked eye oftentimes, but not to measurement overall. And it is not insignificant.

"Relatively" insignificant, not "insignificant".
To say it is pretty well "seen" is again, very misleading. It isn't "seen" at all. It has to be looked for inside inconvenient observation.
It's an exception not to other planets, but to the definition of a whole sphere. A sphere can have an anomaly that renders it imperfect as a sphere, and yet the imperfection is insignificant enough not to redefine the sphere itself.
That's the case here.

christianpessimist · Apr 5, 2017

Greyy · Apr 6, 2017

Rick Otto said:
Right....
So you're not prepared to do the math and deny or confirm my observations. I get that. Few who are quick to ridicule are also quick on the math.

What math? You have provided no math.

You just completely ignored my post. Who is responsible for this grand conspiracy dating back 500 years when Europeans first started circumnativigating the globe?

This isn't something recent like the moon landing in which a few people are involved in the actual physical landing. We are talking about 500 years of global exploration and trade based on an understanding of a spherical earth. It is stuff used by individuals and companies every day, and apparently everyone is on it including modern tuna boat captains and the explorer Magellan.

Rick Otto · Apr 6, 2017

Fenny the Fox said:
But it is not an exception. It is pretty well seen in most all planets and "spheroid" bodies in our solar system. Saturn being the most dramatic at over 11,000km (flattening ration of roughly 1:10, versus earth's ration of 1:298). It is a result of physical force of rotational energy, causing the equator to bulge under the speed of rotation.
Equatorial bulge - Wikipedia

"Imperceptible" is a relative term. It is "imperceptible" to the naked eye oftentimes, but not to measurement overall. And it is not insignificant.

It is imperceptible to the naked eye every time.
It is insignificant in the defining of the shape until we enter the significantly narrow context where this ordinarily imperceptible difference, has impact.

Greyy · Apr 7, 2017

Rick Otto said:
Wake up. The math is the physical relationship of a straight line of sight to an allegedly curving surface. You assert the curve, the burden is then on you to provide the math describing it.

There is no relationship between a straight line of sight and the curvature of the Earth. You would need to define that line in relation to the sphere. For example, we can create a straight line through a laser pointer. Thus, emulating a straight line of sight we have at the center of our eyes' focus. I could place it level on the ground, at which point there would be a relationship to define mathematically. I could place it on top of a ladder, or a building, which would change the relationship. I could place the laser at any number of angles, also changing the relationship.

We can create any numbers of mathematic formulae to describe this relationship. So, if we put a laser pointer on the ground, perpendicular to the distance to the center (flat on the ground), we can determine with simple geometry the change in distance of the beam of light to the surface of the Earth, at any particular point. We would be treating the light as it would behave in a vacuum, for the sake of simplicity, as atmospheric refraction can change this.

In this model, we can use a right angle triangle, as we know height squared plus base squared equals the squared length. (HxH + BxB= LxL). Since the Earth is a sphere, we can use its radius at our height (6371 km). That is, there are 6371 kilometers between the surface of the earth at which the laser pointer begins and the center of the Earth at which it is perpendicular. As the Earth is curved, we can expect the beam of light to increase its distance above the surface the more it travels. Let's make it 26.2km, the distance of a marathon run.

So we have a straight line, from the center of the Earth to the surface of 6371km. At this point, we form a right angle with the laser beam extending to a distance of 26.2km. The distance between that point, and the center of the Earth can easily be calculated:

HxH + BxB = LxL
6371x6371 + 26.2x26.2 = LxL
40,590,327.44 = L x L

L = 6371.0538720057924... km
Since the radius of the Earth is 6371km, we see that line of light, or "sight" is 0.0538720057924... km above the Earth. That's about 177 ft. Meaning, if line of sight was 177ft above ground, you could see the ground up to 26.2km away.

That's the math - and the reality is easily observed. When we increase our elevation, we can see further, before being limited by the horizon. If the Earth were flat, we would literally be able to see to the end of the Earth.

The Earth is not flat and anyone can see this. Go 500 ft up above the surface. Then 1000 ft. Then 2000 ft. The higher you go, the further you can see. If the Earth were flat, and there was nothing blocking your view of distant object going higher would actually increase your distance to the object and make it more obscure.

Show me the curve.

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Dream crusher

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Noted strange person

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Active Member

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Similar threads