|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 07:33 PM EST |
From a topological point of view, locally there is no difference between a plane
and a sphere. So there is no way you will be able to prove the earth is round
with out leaving it and looking at it from space.
Technically, the difference between a plane and a sphere is a single point. So
if somewhere on the planet, there is a point that doesn't exist, then the earth
is topologically flat. Such a point, would likely have very magical
properties.
The real question is who cares. If the earth is flat based on a technicality,
it really doesn't matter. Things work out much more accurately and easily if we
assume the earth is round. So most of us do so. The rest waste their time
contemplating a vast conspiracy of everyone else.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Flat earth - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 04:17 AM EST
- Neat proof! - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 10:40 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 08:03 PM EST |
Won't work: Fly to space is obviously impractical
It apears curved because of light refracting (this is actuall true, if you try
to calculate the size of the earth by the apperent curvature when looking at
things like the ocean you get something ridiculously small)
Something disapearing on the horrizion is the same as above
Will, at least sorta work: The shadow formed by a lunar eclipse (sun-earth-moon)
would work, it doesn't prove it's spherical though
Google earth (or flying around the world, or a string of pictures from flying
around the world) works pretty well... except theoretically it could be faked,
flying in a (very big) circle if you are actually trying to fly around it,
computer faking it with google earth or images.
A stratospheric balloon would be within you capability's with some internet
searching probably, and the pictures would show the actual curvature, and the
atmospheric haze, of the earth.
You could measure the lengths of shadows from identical hight poles
perpindicular to flat as dictated by gravity on earth, if the earth is round
they would be different hights otherwise they would be the same hight.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:55 PM EST |
It is quite difficult to prove Earth is round, because you need such accurate
measurements.
The difference between truly flat and a round sphere of about 6371 km radius
(average radius for Earth) is minuscule. If you take a straight rod, a kilometer
long, you only need to bend it by 2cm in the middle for it to conform perfectly
to the curvature of the earth.
At 7139 meters, the "bulge" in the middle is just about one meter
high.
The way they used to do it was via triangulation, measuring the visual angles
between stations, the stations creating a triangular mesh covering the mapped
area. The end result is 3D coordinates for the stations. You can prove there is
no horizontal diffraction or other visual interference by also measuring the
distances: theoretically, you only need the baseline distance between one pair
of stations, but if you have more, you can prove there cannot be any visual
interference, because the data fits the sphere model of Earth.
If you had a very accurate gyroscope, you could also travel with the gyroscope,
and measure the difference between true horizon and the gyroscope horizon (or
better, measure the gyroscope axis deviation from gravitational
"down"). It is about one degree every 111 km, when you travel straight
away from your starting point.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 02:56 PM EST |
Are you trying to get someone to pay for your world trip? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 11 2012 @ 11:12 AM EST |
The proof depends on the level of blindness exhibited by the person viewing the
proof.
I could do the same trick - put a ball bearing on the table and say "You
can't prove that the ball bearing is spherical"; then just say "I
don't believe you" to every piece of evidence you bring up.
Yes, that is an extreme position. It also represents the type of attitude of the
majority of people I deal with - "teachable" attitudes are,
unfortunately, incredibly rare.
cpeterson[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|