Notices

View Poll Results: have you measured earth radius?

Voters
4. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    3 75.00%
  • no

    1 25.00%
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: rationality,has anyone measured earth radius themsleves?

  1. #1 rationality,has anyone measured earth radius themsleves? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    if i say earth radius is 600 km and i measured myself whose more rational:

    me believing the world is a huge lie and earth radius is really 600 km

    or you who take what you are told as granted but dont take into consideration you could be some kind of truman and are abosulutly convinced earth radius is 6000 km

    in fact how do you even know the erath is not flat, cause books say so?

    i can say it by personal experience, i measured it


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Describe the method you used to measure it, including calculations.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    how do you know im not lying thats the whole point

    the truman show movie is philosophical

    why truman doesnt question the reality is offered?

    btw i used this method:

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Sorry, but that's of no value. Using trees? How tall are the trees?

    sheesh...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    no i did it from the top of a building, an artificial horizont vs the sea horizont

    but thats not my point

    my point is rationality is blind faith in what the stage tells

    thats not rationality, rationality is not believing but seeing by yourself

    matrix and the truman show show a staged reality, they are very deep philosophical movies

    how rational is not taking that posibility into account

    i dont like the word rational( who thinks) being stolen when actually its meaning nowadays is having blind faith in what books say

    do you even believe a single person here has verified by himself, no in class, any of the things he takes as granted?

    do you think the world is fair enough as to trust blindly on it?

    hell how do you really even know the world is not flat, cause a majority says so and seems convincing?

    well i can say, i measured its curvature
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Sorry, but your point is you haven't the slightest clue what you think you are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I routinely fly thousands of miles. I can confirm the aircraft velocity from the passage of the aircraft shadow on the ground. My observations are consistent with the declared diameter of the Earth.

    I have duplicated Eratosthenese' measurement of the Earth's size in a crude manner and that gave a consistent figure also.

    You may choose to believe or disbelieve things you are told. I choose to check some of them out. Since I have always found, thus far, that my observations are consistent with conventional wisdom I am pleased to accept many other theories on a provisional and practical basis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    "I routinely fly thousands of miles. I can confirm the aircraft velocity from the passage of the aircraft shadow on the ground."

    yeah that sounds so scientificial

    and what a an amazing sight to see a 30 m shadow at 10 km height, congratulations

    scotland is not among the tropics so you just cant replicate eratostenes experiment

    unless crudely means something like the plane shadow stuff, or doing it in your imagination
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    for you to be correct hundreds of years of explorers, pilots, captains and astronauts have been lying about their speed? Every single aircraft pilot flying over the atlantic or pacific would have to be in on this conspiracy. I choose to believe the speedometers and not you. Large airliners cannot take of until they reach about 250 km/h. For your theory to be correct the speed of an airliner going around the world would have to be 2 km/h. The airplane wouldn't be able to get off the ground. Don't believe the takeoff speed mentioned here? Go down to your local airport with a speed gun.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager
    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ce/q0088.shtml

    Based on flight time of the Rutan Voyager, first aerial non-stop circumnavigation of the globe and the boeing 737 takeoff speed.

    Edit: I realize that this isn't fully accurate because of the rutan voyagers slow speed, but it did not go 2 km/h.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    "I routinely fly thousands of miles. I can confirm the aircraft velocity from the passage of the aircraft shadow on the ground."

    yeah that sounds so scientificial

    and what a an amazing sight to see a 30 m shadow at 10 km height,
    Once again lux you demonstrate that you very rarely make observations yourself and assume that no one else does. Are you denying the possibility of seeing the shadow of a 777 or an Airbus on the ground? In other words are you calling me a liar?

    Are you stating it is not possible to estimate the distance between points on the ground based, for example on the observed size of running tracks and baseball grounds?

    Is there an error in these measurements? Of course there is. There is an error in every measurement made. But the error bars though large, still enclose a number that matches that delivered by the aircraft sensors. Again, are you choosing to call me a liar?

    Setting a task (estimate the speed of an aircraft by observation of its shadow), determining a suitable metric and process, then implementing that porcess to produce a result that is validated by an established technique, well yes - that is 'scientifical'. It's an amusing way of passing the time using problem solving skills. There is no practical application of the technique that springs to mind, but that is not the point of the exercise.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    scotland is not among the tropics so you just cant replicate eratostenes experiment
    1. Eratosthenes experiment was based upon the elevation of the sun at different latitudes. It does not matter what those latitudes were. the experiment could be duplicated at the North pole and Toronto, for example. Neither are in the tropics.
    2. Eratosthenese did not conduct the experiment in the tropics. Syene is on the edge of the tropics, but Alexandria is several degrees north.
    3. I've already pointed out that I travel extensively. Some of that time is spent in the tropics, so even if his experiment required a tropical location I would have no difficulty meeting this requirement.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    unless crudely means something like the plane shadow stuff,
    As an amusing experiment to check out close order of magnitude values that is exactly what crudely means. What is does demonstrate is that your suggested figure of 600 miles (or was it km?) is wrong, not just inaccurate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    how do you know im not lying thats the whole point

    the truman show movie is philosophical

    why truman doesnt question the reality is offered?

    btw i used this method:

    That's the method, now where are your numbers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    oh i did it 3 years ago so dont have them any more

    but dont get me wrong im not saying earth is 600 km radius

    im saying it may not be 6000 km that the books maybe lying

    i believe in a beautifull and good god

    the only way to make this compatible with reailty is the world being staged and many news being false

    i dont belive it i just ponder it, im agnostci
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I'm still waiting for you to retract your statements or openly call me a liar. Which will it be?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    i dont think youre a lier just measuring earth radius by a plane moving shadow is not practuical

    edit:

    anyhow still you did what proves wrong my saying NOBODY checking what books say

    still i think we are a minority most have blind faith in books
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    i dont think youre a lier just measuring earth radius by a plane moving shadow is not practuical
    Where did I say that I had measured its radius in this way? I stated I had assessed the distance covered by an aeroplane in a given time period. I found this to be consistently approximately the same as that determined by the aircraft sensors. Further, I found the distance covered during the flight at this speed, was consistent with the declared dimensions for the Earth. Thus, although I did not measure the Earth's radius this way I carried out measurements and observations that gave results consistent with the declared radius.

    Please tell me what is impractical about this. I have described a methodology. It is not sufficient for you to say it is impractical - you have to stipulate what is impractical about it and why. I do find it mildly amusing and almost insulting that you have the arrogance to declare something impractical when by your own statements you have demonstrated that you have few if any practical abilities of your own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    "I can confirm the aircraft velocity from the passage of the aircraft shadow on the ground. My observations are consistent with the declared diameter of the Earth."

    i would like to know how you measure a velocity by a moving shadow?

    oh and probably you are a stager:

    a plane which is high has no shadow

    unless the plane appears bigger than the sun

    maybe a very slight penumbra, you know angualrs size of the sun is 0.5
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    i would like to know how you measure a velocity by a moving shadow?
    Velocity equals distance over time. You figure out how far the shadow moves in a given duration, then divide. This is rather simple stuff, luxtpm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    yeah now who cares now ive seen his bs

    planes have to go ultra low to give a shadow

    so low it should cover the sun
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm

    why such an obvious bs of the plane shadow to measure earth
    I took him to mean that he verified the plane's approximate velocity during ascent/descent using the shadow and then used the overall travel time to estimate a distance traveled. All very ballpark, I am sure, but all Ophi was actually saying was that the distance he has personally traveled is suggestive of a planet of the approximate size it is generally claimed to be. If it were off by an order of magnitude, an observant person would notice something amiss.

    Anyway, your broad point is a bit silly. It isn't practical for most people to verify every assertion about the world that they encounter, however it does not logically follow that there is something wrong with those assertions because of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    that makes no sense

    at take off plane goes 300 kbh

    cruise speed is 700 kph

    i think he was just being negative

    putting someone down to feel good
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    {self censored}
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    that makes no sense

    at take off plane goes 300 kbh

    cruise speed is 700 kph

    i think he was just being negative

    putting someone down to feel good
    I think he was making a perfectly rational point- he's traveled around and has not noticed the Earth being substantially smaller than is generally claimed. He's gone into some detail and you haven't done much to refute him. When Ophi decides to put you down, you'll know all about it.

    Any comment on my other point? I'm basically asking you "so what"? As in, "so what if a minority of people test the basic claims made in science books?".

    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    {self censored}
    :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    yes i apologize cause ive been negative myself

    but its difficult to express that measuring erath radius with a plane shadow is bs in a kind manner

    why not going in car 500 km and realizing its actually 500 km

    anyway my point is that the scinetific method is based in trust of the stage

    well the truman show movie and matrix bring down that concept and proves blind trust is wrong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    yes i apologize cause ive been negative myself

    but its difficult to express that measuring erath radius with a plane shadow is bs in a kind manner

    why not going in car 500 km and realizing its actually 500 km

    anyway my point is that the scinetific method is based in trust of the stage

    well the truman show movie and matrix bring down that concept and proves blind trust is wrong
    Blind trust is wrong. This isn't blind trust.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    well blind trust on mainstream books and other people, blind trust on the majority, thats what the word rational evoques to me

    for example could the wrold have been made perfect by god but the devil stage it so people hate god?

    if things are what they seem i would hate god if he existed but by personal experience i would say things are not what they seem
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    What the hell ( ) does that have to do with the subject of your topic?

    You make so little sense, it's stunning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    oh its just a posibility why we could be lied

    also if blind faith is wrong then im right you cant be sure earth radius is 6000 km unless you measure it yourself

    if any "rational" person says earth may not be 6000 km radius he wont seem "rational" any more
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    For ****'s sake luxtm, if you have an ounce of intellect and a smidegeon of sanity, both of which attributes you seem to lack to an appalling degree, will you employ them now. If you cannot remove your ridiculous paranoia with logic then please take some ****ing medication and stop polluting these forums with your inane, infantile drivel.

    Some of us, using scientific methodology, have confirmed a whole variety of 'facts' that science claims as 'facts'. Sometimes we have done so using gross approximations that yield order of magnitude answers, but at other times we have used state of the art equipment and techniques, and everything in between. This has revealed a consistent suite of confirmations of the 'facts' declared by science. Therefore, we make a reasonable assumption that the same would be true of most of the 'facts' we might investigate. If we doubt a particular 'fact' we have only to investigate it ourselves, directly or indirectly. No blind faith is involved, in fact no faith of any kind.

    Are you too wrapped up in your own distorted view of the world to understand this?

    (By the way, you have now been put down. Up until now I have been polite, but your persistent criticism of my integrity and intelligence and motivation became unacceptable.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    i apologized and deleted the offensive contnet

    sorry again if i offended you, got a little passionate

    honestly i regreted what i said, i should have just asked you a calrification on the shadow that if the plane is high is invisible

    edit:

    the reason why i got annoyed is that i made you a compliment of you being of the minority who verifies things andf your answer would be a litle ugly:

    "I do find it mildly amusing and almost insulting that you have the arrogance to declare something impractical when by your own statements you have demonstrated that you have few if any practical abilities of your own"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    i apologized and deleted the offensive contnet
    Thank you for the apology. I accept it. I would have preferred you leave the material in place, but what is done is done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •