# @sonhouse **BOGUS MATH???**

FreakyKBH
Debates 10 May '17 20:16
1. 10 May '17 20:16
On another thread, you opined how the calculations used to determine the horizon--- and the accurate amount of 'drop off' distant objects should be from the observer's position--- are based on bogus math.

CHALLENGE: Provide the calculation or formula you would accept as a reliable and accurate means of calculating the curvature of the earth.

Easy 'nuff, right?
2. Ghost of a Duke
A Spirited Misfit
10 May '17 20:27
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
On another thread, you opined how the calculations used to determine the horizon--- and the accurate amount of 'drop off' distant objects should be from the observer's position--- are based on bogus math.

[b]CHALLENGE: Provide the calculation or formula you would accept as a reliable and accurate means of calculating the curvature of the earth.

Easy 'nuff, right?[/b]
Thought we did that already, like 6 months back?!
3. shavixmir
Guppy poo
10 May '17 20:41
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
On another thread, you opined how the calculations used to determine the horizon--- and the accurate amount of 'drop off' distant objects should be from the observer's position--- are based on bogus math.

[b]CHALLENGE: Provide the calculation or formula you would accept as a reliable and accurate means of calculating the curvature of the earth.

Easy 'nuff, right?[/b]
Since 99.9999% of the Earth know it's a bloody globe (which means a ball or testicle.. in case you're wondering): why don't you provide the maths to suggest otherwise.

There you go.
4. 10 May '17 22:00
Originally posted by shavixmir
Since 99.9999% of the Earth know it's a bloody globe (which means a ball or testicle.. in case you're wondering): why don't you provide the maths to suggest otherwise.

There you go.
Not so fast there, pilgrim.
We gottalota ground to cover, so wizeabout you mosey on over here and sit a spell.
5. 10 May '17 22:03
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Thought we did that already, like 6 months back?!
Not, apparently, to sonhouse's good pleasure.
He, this very day, charged me (and the company of all others so affiliated) of using "bogus math."

So there's that.
6. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
10 May '17 22:26
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not, apparently, to sonhouse's good pleasure.
He, this very day, charged me (and the company of all others so affiliated) of using "bogus math."

So there's that.
Show me the math you use.
7. 10 May '17 23:41
Originally posted by sonhouse
Show me the math you use.
Silly rabbit: tricks are for kids.

You.
You
personally.
You explicitly.
You without exception.

What do YOU accept as an accurate representation of calculating the curvature of the earth?
8. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
10 May '17 23:43
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Silly rabbit: tricks are for kids.

[b]You.
You
personally.
You explicitly.
You without exception.

What do YOU accept as an accurate representation of calculating the curvature of the earth?[/b]
You ever hear of Pythagoras? Maybe the pythagorean theorem? So google it and tell me what it is.
9. 11 May '17 00:25
Originally posted by sonhouse
You ever hear of Pythagoras? Maybe the pythagorean theorem? So google it and tell me what it is.
You claimed that my math is bogus.
My math is based on Pythagorean theorem for spherical objects.
I challenged you to provide a calculation or formula which you consider to be accurate.

What do you want to bet you won't provide an answer?
10. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
11 May '17 01:17
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You claimed that my math is bogus.
My math is based on Pythagorean theorem for spherical objects.
I challenged you to provide a calculation or formula which you consider to be accurate.

What do you want to bet you won't provide an answer?
It not just Pythy that counts. Empirically it has been found to add 7 or 8 percent due to refraction.
11. 11 May '17 01:27
Originally posted by sonhouse
It not just Pythy that counts. Empirically it has been found to add 7 or 8 percent due to refraction.
Surprise: still waiting.
12. Ponderable
chemist
11 May '17 05:31
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
On another thread, you opined how the calculations used to determine the horizon--- and the accurate amount of 'drop off' distant objects should be from the observer's position--- are based on bogus math.

[b]CHALLENGE: Provide the calculation or formula you would accept as a reliable and accurate means of calculating the curvature of the earth.

Easy 'nuff, right?[/b]
So you abegin anew to goad.

So you are clear that:

* You can't use pure math to prove or disprove anything not mathematical.
* You need measurements taken. If you doubt the measurement or the measurement technique no amount of math will prove anything.

SO the math is strictly not relevant. The understanding of the measurement is.

The sheer fact that there are very different stars when looking from far north and from far south should be a hint. On a flat earth why would the stars look different?

But if you want the math: then if you dig a well somewehre on the equator and then dig a well a known and signifikant distance north of it. Wait until the sun shines directly down the eqautorial well and have someone measurein the angle under which the sun shine in their well. Then you can use the distance between your wells as a roughly straight line and as long as we assume a globular earth you can assume the radii to be the same. Then apply the law of the sines and you get a rough estimate of curvature using simple math.

If there are any questions on the math you will find the answers in your high school math books.
13. 11 May '17 10:18
Originally posted by Ponderable
So you abegin anew to goad.

So you are clear that:

* You can't use pure math to prove or disprove anything not mathematical.
* You need measurements taken. If you doubt the measurement or the measurement technique no amount of math will prove anything.

SO the math is strictly not relevant. The understanding of the measurement is.

The sheer fa ...[text shortened]... If there are any questions on the math you will find the answers in your high school math books.
That's a lot of a-needless a-digging and a-assumption.
Surely there exists a formula for calculating expected curvature which could be applied?
In your example--- based on a folklore of a most implausible and inexact "scientific" experiment--- far more measurement and exactitude is required than a simple calculation applied to the known distance between two points.

Fortunately, just such a calculation is available.
14. Ghost of a Duke
A Spirited Misfit
11 May '17 10:35
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's a lot of a-needless a-digging and a-assumption.
Surely there exists a formula for calculating expected curvature which could be applied?
In your example--- based on a folklore of a most implausible and inexact "scientific" experiment--- far more measurement and exactitude is required than a simple calculation applied to the known distance between two points.

Fortunately, just such a calculation is available.
'Using the theorem of Pythagoras a2 = 39632 + 12 = 15705370 and thus a = 3963.000126 miles. Thus your position is 3963.000126 - 3963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth. 0.000126 miles = 12*5280*0.000126 = 7.98 inches. Hence the earth's surface curves approximately 8 inches in one mile.'

Give or take an inch.
15. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
11 May '17 10:431 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
'Using the theorem of Pythagoras a2 = 39632 + 12 = 15705370 and thus a = 3963.000126 miles. Thus your position is 3963.000126 - 3963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth. 0.000126 miles = 12*5280*0.000126 = 7.98 inches. Hence the earth's surface curves approximately 8 inches in one mile.'

Give or take an inch.
And about 6 miles for 2 people with eyes at 6 foot up to just see each other, further than that, they disappear except for refraction effects of hot air on top of cold which can extend the view many miles but that is a mirage and through telescopes wavey looking.
One formula is just Pythag, right triange, where the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares of the other two sides, C=hypotenuse, so A^2 + B^2=C^2 A being the radius of Earth B being the tangent to the circle of the spherical shape of Earth and the distance to where B and C intersect, and of course times two since you need one going the opposite way to complete the math. But still under ordinary circumstances, about 7 to 10 % more added to account for normal atmospheric refraction, but that is not the whole story, sometimes inversions happen where hot air is sitting on top of cold air and then all bets are off, you could see hundreds of miles over the horizon in that case.

BTW, laser experiments don't work so well due to atmospheric refractions bending the laser beam around depending on the air pressure, humidity, temperature inversions and so forth.
You tout seeing those buildings off in the distance over the lake but you didn't look close enough. The rules say if it is not just due to temperature inversion, the bottoms of the buildings will not be seen, you will see say the middle of the buildings up to the top and there are vids that prove that and I already linked them to you so don't give me 'LINK?' since you already should have viewed it if you were being intellectually honest and actually interested in truth rather than forcing math and sciene to make it appear Earth is flat. That is not science, that is politics. That is what politicians do, bend the truth to tell their lies, just like you.