Questions for Flat Earth Discussions

Q: Why are the flat-earthers analyzing minutia of document that has been superceded a number of times in the past 123 years by superior measurement technology, methodology, and mathematical calculating capabilities?

A: Because they just looking to yank people's chains.

As to your specific questions - one observation on that page is reported with greater than 60 seconds. Big whoop. The author may have intended this, or it may have been a typo. Subtract 60 seconds, and add 1 minute to the values shown. The math still works.

About rejecting some values from the "deflection of the local vertical" from the calculations - the scientists found the measured values unrealistic. Probably outside the 3-sigma value of a normal distribution for the measurements, so relegated to the error category of a blunder, and thus discarded. Perfectly acceptable use of statistics in a multitude of disciplines.

Tell your flat-earther friends that their time would be better spent playing video games in mommy's basement.

Almost all the measures in that document have more than 60 arc seconds. It isn't a typo--I THINK it's the way they did the notation back then (not "carrying the excess")--but if someone knows the history, I'd like to understand it.

As to what these guys are like: NO--they absolutely believe it. Some of them have cognitive dissonance because they realize how absurd it is--but trust me on this: until you encounter these guys, you just cannot have an idea how bad this is.

The bad part is that they are spreading it--like a kind of degraded religion, they attempt to spread the flat-earth idea and they are better at it than you probably imagine is possible. I'm doing my part to make this hard (it happens in online spaces). But in order to do it, I need to be able to answer questions about these documents.

Like I said, the notation seems to be the way turn of the century surveyors did it--but I don't know why. I'm hoping someone here can maybe point me to a surveying historian or provide the material?

Thanks. I'm not trying to be annoying here--It just looked like this is the place to go and ask.

-M

Oh! Also, I wanted to say: I am the one who selected this document because it shows, as I understand it, large area measurements with spherical excess. They claim the "Observation" measures are somehow manipulated to create spherical excess when they don't have it from the natural measurements.

But before I can use this to show how large area triangles come out to more than 180 degrees, I need to be able to understand why the notation works like this.

If there is a better document that shows the same, by all means: please point me to it!

Equally as foolish as believing the earth is flat is believing you can change the belief of the flat earthers by reasoning with them.

There's a lot of truth to this--but I'd like to be able to answer the questions. Are these super hard questions? Is there a historical source you can point me to which might be better?

You can show a flat-earther facts; but you can't make him think...

But the earth is hollow; because you can't prove that it isn't!

"Almost all the measures in that document have more than 60 arc seconds." I only looked at the page you quoted, and only one measure showed greater than 60 seconds in that column - 15 Mount Como shows 66.636 seconds. I didn't look at the other pages, so I don't know how you are coming up with "almost all".

I also thought you were addressing specific criticisms of this document from some flat-earthers. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Trying to explain geodesy to a layman is challenging enough. I wouldn't waste my time with a flat earth fanatic.

Show them the post squirl provided a few days ago showing flat-earther surfers falling off the edge of the Earth. It was in Off topic, chit chat forum.

Posted by squirl on December 21, 2023 at 7:31 am

stand here

HW77+R2 Glandore, County Cork, Ireland

at the Drombeg standing stones. You can see the ocean on either side of the ridge and see the curvature of the earth...

It doesn't hurt that it's beautiful too.

Big time speculation here but I wonder how the units were read on the instruments they used. If you used say 1 vernier to obtain the degrees and then another to obtain the minutes and finally a third to obtain the seconds. Then it would be very possible to read to the minute and have a range of seconds that exceeded 60 for the reading on the final vernier. Again I have zero knowledge of what was actually being read to obtain the angles.

Thanks for the help--I appreciate ppl taking time out of their holiday to even consider these questions 🙂

Eh just show 'em the Thorntonbank wind farm:

Cool images, Rover.

The seconds are more than 60 is for simplicity in math. For accruing angles and to apply the corrections which can take it above or below the 60 seconds mark.

The same can happen for minutes or degrees. We all know that there is only 360 degrees in a circle. But in note keeping for geodetic work turning multiple angles you could double that. Easily. Doing the math in your head or on a piece of paper turning 16 sets with a 1/2” instrument. Later all would be reduced and such but for in the initial stage. Locking and unlocking plates made it just easier. It is also why many tried to never zero on object as you would be more likely to blunder the math. We turned 16 direct and reverse with an old wild digital transit. It could keep adding the angles as we measured on the 4 quadrants. So seconds added no transferring to minutes same for minutes degrees. It was purposely set up that way when running a certain routine. We recorded nothing digitally only by hand. On a form not a field book. After all corrections were made and data was deemed good the reduction would take place.

As far as the flat earth folks are don’t loose sleep or time arguing. They are in another world most of them. Some just fall to the prey of those who influence them. I mean this was solved back in the 14 or 1600 lol.