Well, two issues. As you have pointed out the sticks are not exactly plumb or representing the correct zenith angles. But then he doesn't follow the curve of the surface (great circle) to establish the correct vectors between each point. He has basically created a 2D triangle hovering over a 3D surface.
Let's see now. TWO scenarios, thus: 1) Brian has it wrong. 2) Many hundreds of thousands of geodetic surveyors throughout history all have it wrong. Hmmm... I wonder which it is...
Something not a single flerf has ever asked him/herself: "How do cartographers know to draw accurate coastlines & shapes of countries over the last, say, 300 years?" -- in particular, in the sense of actually creating accurate maps.
I can see why Brian got confused. I did. It is true to say that in the plane of the 3 points, the angles will always be 180 degrees. I went round in circles for a bit, but then realised, it's the divergence of the verticals that causes the excess in reality. Taking the simple case of equal elevation observations. If you think your vertical lines are parallel, then 180 it must be, but when you have divergent vertical lines the swept angle between the verticals must be greater than the plane angle. The theodolite rotates around the vertical axis, not the plane of the triangle, and you get 3 angles and intersects that don't actually form a triangle in space Whew. I thought I was about to be converted... Edit. Your video did actually show this, but it took a bit to work it out in my head
And add to this that divergence of the verticals is quite small for most surveying, it's not hard to totally miss that point. Much like the 'dip angle' to the horizon used in celestial navigation, it's easy to miss it without precise instruments. But ignoring 'dip' can set you off by a couple of miles
It is bewildering how Leaky didn't even notice how the pencils in the clay blobs he used aren't parallel to each other. The light bulb in his head will never illuminate.
Great and very clear demonstration! If I may make a suggestion, showing this on a much larger triangle could also be a good idea - then it would be clear that the angle measurements are done in planes that aren't parallel, and this is why the sums of the angles don't match, unlike on a flat surface. But of course the scale at which you did it is closer to the scale of triangles measured in reality 🙂
Thanks. I did wonder afterwards if that point was clear, re: the 3 planes at 4:10 to 4:17 not being parallel. That's a tripping point for flerfs when they think all horizontals are parallel. Yeah, I kept it on the small side because I wanted to show excess similar to many of those triangles found in the transcontinental survey, the one Andrew Johnston did a video about. The other thing was it looks cool to see a flat surface first, then I introduce a curved surface with radius of Earth and they look no different 🤣.
@@Petey194 "The other thing was it looks cool to see a flat surface first, then I introduce a curved surface with radius of Earth and they look no different 🤣" I see! 🤣
This one took a bit of thinking. So the corners of the triangle, when viewed in the plane of the triangle, do add up to exactly 180 degrees. However, the slight tilt of the triangle's plane at the local horizontal at each corner causes a slight foreshortening of the triangle in the direction from the corner toward the center, effectively shortening the span of the triangle in that direction, thereby increasing the overall angle of the corner from the perspective of the local horizontal. The triangle itself has 180 degrees of interior angles, but each corner reads a slightly larger angle thanks to the fact that the angles are not measured in the same plane that the triangle occupies. Here is an example using a 90 degree corner as viewed in the same plane as the triangle. desmos.com/calculator/te1tdvm5ur
Yeah, seems like sorcery 🤣 and I understand why the flerfs don't get it. The spherical triangle is basically the triangle on the surface. In reality, 3 different angles would be measured horizontally with a levelled measuring device on its side at some elevations where each can see the center of the other 2 stations. Going line of sight will introduce more angle in some cases and a deficit in others but will always even out at 180 in every case. Even though I mostly understood in theory, I was still relieved to see the angles match when lifted off the surface, lol.
Updated the desmos file to make the relationships and the operation of the animation a bit clearer and more intuitive. desmos.com/calculator/swjmhmidh8
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394Took me a minute to figure out what I was looking at. You're drawing a square on a plane, then dragging just tilts that plane from the horizontal. And the top diagram is showing the projection of the tilted plane, onto the 'horizontal' and showing the way the angle would be measured. So although the square never changes shape and the angle is always 90 degrees WITHIN THE PLANE OF THE SQUARE, the birds eye view shows what a surveyor's measure of the angle would look like. Shows that measuring the angle in a plane other than the one containing the angle, gives..... 'interesting' result.
@@mikefochtman7164 Perfect. Or you could do the same thing in 2 seconds with a piece of cardboard... 😅 But then again there is something slippery about real world demos. The brain might swap attention from the near corner angle over to the thin slice that got foreshortened, leaving the impression that the angle decreased ─ or fail to accurately perceive that the near angle has opened up. Being able to accurately see that kinda thing in the real world is one of those abilities that may need to be built up by exercises like drawing from real life.
Brian said "it's impossible that this triangle would ever have more than 180°" and so demonstrates the "I know that I know what you mean so I'm not going to listen" attitude that is so blinding. As Brian demonstrated, three points that can see each other with no refraction will generate a planar triangle using lines of sight whatever the surface is and whatever orientation vertical is at, at the three locations. What Brian keeps on avoiding hearing is that the angle measured is NOT the angle between the sight lines. It is the angle between the horizontal bearings. That means, as this video demonstrates very nicely, the angles measured are the same as in the matching triangle drawn on a 0 feet elevation everywhere surface. On a sphere that is a spherical triangle which Brian admits would have a total of more than 180 degrees. Surveyors did it that way to establish position in the grid independently of the vertical component. On a flat Earth this makes no overall difference to the total of the angles which is always 180 degrees. On a globe the orientation of vertical varies and so affects the results with the total being greater than 180 degrees, as was measured. So why does the orientation of vertical make a difference when taking horizontal bearings? Imagine you are standing at one corner of a horizontal equilateral triangle and each of your arms points at a different other corner. As the triangle is laid horizontal the angle between the two horizontal bearings is obviously 60 degrees. Now imagine the triangle swings down and towards you until it hangs directly below your feet with one corner at your feet and the two lower corners equally to either side of you. Now your arms are pointing down and to each side of you. To take a horizontal bearing you raise your arms to the horizontal while keeping them pointing towards their corner, and see that they are 180 degrees apart.
Here's an experiment that NO flat earther will ever do. Start from any point (preferably at a large salt flat), go 1 mile. Then, turn exactly 60 degrees, and go another mile. Next, turn exactly 60 degrees again, and go 1 more mile. If the Earth is flat, they should end up at exactly the same spot that they started. Yes, isn't measuring spherical excess, this is proving it's existence on the surface of Earth.
The accuracy required to see that you ended up at a different place in this scenario would be impossible to achieve. The spherical excess in such a triangle would be approximately 0.006 arc-seconds. Good theodolites measure angles with an accuracy of ~1 arc-second. Your final position expected on a globe Earth would differ from the initial one by less than a micrometer. If _anyone_ attempted this, they would find that they ended up in exactly the same place again - at least, as far as they could tell. My point being, you'd need a much larger triangle to see any kind of difference.
I can make a real life fe model with air pressure and flowing water and dirt etc .. can you make a globe model in real life using your gravity to hang it in a vacuum and suck the water to it? Then get that water to flow all different directions too.. oh and make a thin layer of air pressure around it too.. If gravity was true you would be able to manipulate it to prove it’s the cause of your effect
@@Auto..Payge. "I can make a real life fe model with air pressure and flowing water and dirt etc .." Cool. Can you make a real life model of a thunderstorm? With miniature cumulonimbus clouds, lightning, strong winds, rain and all? If not, is that evidence for non-existence of thunderstorms? "verticals are all one orientation" You're saying that. Measurements are saying the opposite. I'm going to trust the measurements, I think.
@@Auto..Payge. You can make a real life fe model? Surely it has the atmospheric pressure gradient that goes to a vacuum at the tippy top of your dome, right? Surely, by flowing water you mean the water cycle, right? With rivers, ocean currents & weather. Your dirt has geologic layers & activity, right? Tectonic plate movement and such below the surface. Oh yeah, I forget flerfs don't even have the littlest clue about physics, there's no such thing as "sucking". "Sucking" is specifically something being pushed into a low pressure region because there's less stuff pushing in opposition. You do realize that the vacuum above our atmosphere only makes no sense on a flat earth, right? Of course you can't, you're a flat earther. Uh yeah you can measure gravity... well I guess you could never. But more importantly, it's just blatantly how things work if gravity somehow ceased to exist, reality would be 100% different. Denying gravity can only be achieved by the dumbest of dumb. Maybe you mean you deny what causes gravity, because I seriously can't fathom anyone denying something as simple as things falling towards the earth.
Up until 1:00 with Jeran and Brian talking about the triangle, I'm trying to understand what their argument is. Flat earthers argue that we don't observe spherical excess, and Brian and Jeran are arguing that the globe prediction is to measure no spherical excess, so they are just arguing that the globe model matches observation. I don't understand their game here.
I think the main thrust of their argument is that the 3 measurements make a triangle that has its points and sides all lying in the same plane and therefore excess from elevated positions cannot be observed or measured. It's a normal thought to have I suppose but didn't do much beyond having it.
@@Petey194 Believe it or not, I had this exact conversation with Jesse Koslowski over dinner. I drew a triangle on a sheet of paper on a clipboard, then I balanced that clipboard on three extended fingers, at the vertices. I couldn't understand how line-of-sight observations could result in spherical excess, since it was a planar triangle, as represented by the rigid clipboard. It took a while, but Jesse was finally able to explain that the angles we're measuring aren't line of sight but rather azimuthal in nature. Then it all made sense. 🙂
@@FlatEarthMath It's good that Brian and Jeran gave this some thought but mathematicians and expert surveyors like Jesse don't say spherical excess is a thing for no reason. Jeran was given the answers by McToon on that livestream but chose to give up trying to understand while Brian just straight accused globers of being dishonest. I think Jeran tried harder than Brian. If they were truly curious, they wouldn't stop -persuing- pursuing this until they got answers. If I was Flerf, I'd see this as an opportunity to stick it to the globers and prove them wrong in their claim. Hasn't been done so far! 😛
@@FlatEarthMath I couldn't see how the spherical excess was getting observed either, but I think it makes sense to me now. "Up" according to the plane of the planar triangle above Earth is hunched over leaning slightly forward according to an observer at one of the vertices of the triangle. Brian's model at 0:00 shows that quite well actually. If a person is at a vertex, hunched over so that they are standing up according to the triangle's plane, and also with both arms pointed along the triangle's legs to the other two vertices, then they will see spherical excess when they straighten up and stand "up" according to gravity. Since the other two pencils in Brian's diagram radiate out from the center of the globe, when the observer straightens up and now holds their arms level and points them at the zeniths of the other two vertices of the triangle, their arms had to make a bigger angle to account for the fact that the other two zeniths diverge and the arms are pointed at a higher point on those zeniths. The divergence of the zeniths helps me see where the spherical excess comes from.
It makes sense once you realize the observations being made at each vertex is along their local horizontal (which are all tilted relative each other). So unlike a planar triangle where all the vertices and edges are either coplanar or lie on a parallel plane, these observations don’t. It’s like the V shape at each vertex are neither coplanar or lie on a parallel plane at a different elevation. Not sure if I explained well, I’m a visual learner so it was clear once I drew it out.
This is part of how the whole flerf thing perpetuates; the guy with the clay is right about *his* claim; in his setup the angles add up to 180. The problem is that *his* setup is _not what surveyors do_ when they measure spherical excess. His setup very deliberately _removes_ the surface as a factor, reducing it to a triangle in a flat plane and yeah, in a flat plane the angles add up to 180, that's not a surprise. What is a surprise is that when we *do* follow the surface of earth the angles add up to more than 180. This is not debateable, it has been well documented ever since our instruments became accurate enough to see it. So the real question is: why does clay-man try to debunk a measurement *along a surface* with one that *does not follow the surface*? I'll be optimistic and assume he genuinely doesn't understand the problem.
Hey Brian, now, from a position perpendicular to the plane of your triangle in free space, trace the path of those strings on the globe below. Oh, would you lookie there, they aren't actually straight (great circle) lines at all...in fact, they're sorta pinched in to get rid of what? That's right, Brian, it's that pesky spherical excess that you're still not comprehending.
😢😮😅😊 I confess, I'm the culprit here. Or instigator at least. I pointed out exactly that (fake) argument to them flat Earthers a few months ago, how to use direct lines from hilltop to hilltop to claim _"... bbbutt there is no spherical excess without a container ...."_ Oops, "without a container" ?? 😧🤔 Seems the needle jumped over a few tracks on that old record 💽 It's simply too worn out ...😊😊😊
The flat earthers need to hire a surveyor and do the measures themselves. Saying it doesn't work in a drawing isn't the same as actually measuring the excess. Of Course they don't know how to do spherical math.
Typical Flers = Straw-man or misrepresent the globe position, then say the incorrect globe position you have made up is BS and act like a tool about it. I asked a rather prominent UA-cam flerf (who claimed spherical excess was impossible) to go to 0 Lat / 0 Long on a globe and draw a line from there to the North Pole, turn right 90° and draw a line back to the equator, then turn right 90° again and draw a line back to where he started. I knew I had him when he abused me and started deleting my comments 🤣
Petey you can’t Measure 📐 a Triangle that has more or less than 180 degrees for several reasons. 1. You do not have a baseline, with a triangle you have 180, what’s your baseline for use in reality ? 2. You can’t measure a Triangle with curved lines. 3. The Hypotenuse of every claimed spherical triangle is shorter than an actual triangle, yet the opposite and adjacent are equal ? 4. What you did in your video was measure three separate angle, and then added their angles up together, that is not a triangle that is three separate angles from three separate locations, which is why you thought that there was an elevation issue, you don’t understand surveying the triangle is measured from one observer and location. You also didn’t curve your surface from what you show you just did maths, maths after you used three separate angle measurements, that is not surveying practices Petey.
I used a geometry program to create lines and arcs for 2 scenarios. Where those lines and arcs meet there are angles. Those angles can be measured with or without tangents. You might not think the surface was curved for the 2nd scenario but it was. It was a small section of a sphere with radius 6371km. Click the link in the description and see for yourself. Just zoom out and you'll see the curve. It just looks flat because we're dealing with small distances of 20km or so. Yes, 3 separate angles agree with the spherical triangle but more importantly, they agree with reality, hence spherical excess. If in reality we always get 180° for those 3 seperate angles then that would suggest all verticals are parallel (FE). But in reality all verticals diverge with respect to each other just like in the 2nd scenario and that's how you get excess of 180° (globe). It's geometry Brian and only one scenario agrees with reality. It's a slam dunk I'm afraid. So stop saying you CAN'T THIS and you CAN'T THAT when I just did! Game over! 😊
@@Petey194 No Petey your showing that you understand how to use software, but that you don’t understand measurement in reality ? First it doesn’t matter wether there were arcs created or not, your process is not the process used in surveying, your process is only possible within software and maths. Let me explain when they measure using Theodolite’s in surveying between three mountains 🏔 they are measuring from only one location, the full Triangle is created from this point. The surveyors will know at least one of the distances involved, and will then use trigonometry which is triangles 180 degrees, to work out the other distances via the angles and known distances, with a levelled ( horizontal ) Theodolite and it’s Azimuth plate. Now Spherical Excess is exactly what it sounds like, as when you take one of these measured areas like I detail above, and you add the globes unmeasured R value, what happens is you curve the straight lines of sight, that were required to make the measurement in the first place, and when you do this over a convex surface, you INCREASE the internal area within the lines as now the lines are curved outwards from straight. What this does is create surface area internally that doesn’t actually exist, and this is Spherical Excess, and it is the reason why Google Earth shorten the hypotenuse of all its claimed spherical triangles, as it’s the only way that Google can mathematically keep distance somewhat correct, so they create this spherical excess by curving straight lines, but then they must take it away again as it doesn’t fit REALITY ???? No there are no diverging verticals Petey, this is yet another software based claim that has zero connection to reality, I will explain…. In surveying they survey all the land using what’s known as rise over run, this is a method of measuring elevation changes over distance. All the rises are parallel verticals, and all the runs are parallel horizontals, as they must be for the process to work and function in reality, this process is used all across the world everywhere Petey, it is the go to standard for measurement of the land, and as I stated above ⬆️ if they were to diverge those verticals and horizontals, they would end up with Spherical Excess, which would be surface area that is NON existent. So not only do all the vertical and horizontals need to be parallel for the process to work, but if they curved them they would have to then either change their measurements like Google Earth does, something that is purely mathematical and sits outside measurement, or they would have to uncurve the verticals and horizontals again, as anything else is NOT conducive to reality. Petey you are being deceived by people on your own side….
We only use Euclidean geometry in reality. All verticals are the same orientation. We understand perpendicular right? If you mess up verticals then of course your end will be messed up too You can’t just say radials are now verticals. Sorry.
Hey @Autodidactic153. You were very vocal in the Try Thinking chat yesterday. Cat got your toungue here? If all verticals were parallel then 3 observers would *ALWAYS* measure angles that sum to exactly 180°, as the geometry shows, in every instance no matter the distances involved. That's not what happens in reality is it? Excess of 180 is always observed in reality. The greater the seperation, the greater the excess. You, Bev, Paper... you're all living in a fantasy world spreading misinformation and it seems deliberate at this point.
Well then, I'll just reply "You can't just say all verticals are the same orientation." This assertion holds just as much weight as yours; blank denial. The difference is, one of these holds up to real world measurements, the other doesn't. Turns out it actually isn't quite radial because we measure by local gravity, not the planet's centre, but that's a far cry from going the literal opposite direction...
1. Draw triangle on a rubber ball.
B. Deflate ball and cut out triangle.
III. Realize that fLaT eArTh is *BOLLOCKS!*
Scissors are hazardous to a flerf's life expectancy.
the angles are always measured in a plane that is locally horizontal.
this was a very good explanation, mate!
In Brian's demo, the sticks aren't all even pointing to the center of his globe. So, the local vertical itself isn't properly established.
Well, two issues. As you have pointed out the sticks are not exactly plumb or representing the correct zenith angles. But then he doesn't follow the curve of the surface (great circle) to establish the correct vectors between each point. He has basically created a 2D triangle hovering over a 3D surface.
Nice one. You showed in a very clear way the part of measuring the triangle in surveying what they are trying so hard to ignore.
Cheers Cap!
Let's see now. TWO scenarios, thus:
1) Brian has it wrong.
2) Many hundreds of thousands of geodetic surveyors throughout history all have it wrong.
Hmmm... I wonder which it is...
Something not a single flerf has ever asked him/herself: "How do cartographers know to draw accurate coastlines & shapes of countries over the last, say, 300 years?" -- in particular, in the sense of actually creating accurate maps.
I can see why Brian got confused. I did. It is true to say that in the plane of the 3 points, the angles will always be 180 degrees.
I went round in circles for a bit, but then realised, it's the divergence of the verticals that causes the excess in reality. Taking the simple case of equal elevation observations. If you think your vertical lines are parallel, then 180 it must be, but when you have divergent vertical lines the swept angle between the verticals must be greater than the plane angle.
The theodolite rotates around the vertical axis, not the plane of the triangle, and you get 3 angles and intersects that don't actually form a triangle in space
Whew. I thought I was about to be converted...
Edit. Your video did actually show this, but it took a bit to work it out in my head
And add to this that divergence of the verticals is quite small for most surveying, it's not hard to totally miss that point. Much like the 'dip angle' to the horizon used in celestial navigation, it's easy to miss it without precise instruments. But ignoring 'dip' can set you off by a couple of miles
Geogebra King, etc. Will share with Jeran 👍👍
😋 haha, cheers roohif!
It is bewildering how Leaky didn't even notice how the pencils in the clay blobs he used aren't parallel to each other. The light bulb in his head will never illuminate.
Great and very clear demonstration!
If I may make a suggestion, showing this on a much larger triangle could also be a good idea - then it would be clear that the angle measurements are done in planes that aren't parallel, and this is why the sums of the angles don't match, unlike on a flat surface.
But of course the scale at which you did it is closer to the scale of triangles measured in reality 🙂
Thanks. I did wonder afterwards if that point was clear, re: the 3 planes at 4:10 to 4:17 not being parallel. That's a tripping point for flerfs when they think all horizontals are parallel. Yeah, I kept it on the small side because I wanted to show excess similar to many of those triangles found in the transcontinental survey, the one Andrew Johnston did a video about. The other thing was it looks cool to see a flat surface first, then I introduce a curved surface with radius of Earth and they look no different 🤣.
@@Petey194 "The other thing was it looks cool to see a flat surface first, then I introduce a curved surface with radius of Earth and they look no different 🤣"
I see! 🤣
But Brian, we DO already know it's a sphere.
Interesting...
This one took a bit of thinking.
So the corners of the triangle, when viewed in the plane of the triangle, do add up to exactly 180 degrees.
However, the slight tilt of the triangle's plane at the local horizontal at each corner causes a slight foreshortening of the triangle in the direction from the corner toward the center, effectively shortening the span of the triangle in that direction, thereby increasing the overall angle of the corner from the perspective of the local horizontal.
The triangle itself has 180 degrees of interior angles, but each corner reads a slightly larger angle thanks to the fact that the angles are not measured in the same plane that the triangle occupies.
Here is an example using a 90 degree corner as viewed in the same plane as the triangle.
desmos.com/calculator/te1tdvm5ur
Yeah, seems like sorcery 🤣 and I understand why the flerfs don't get it. The spherical triangle is basically the triangle on the surface. In reality, 3 different angles would be measured horizontally with a levelled measuring device on its side at some elevations where each can see the center of the other 2 stations. Going line of sight will introduce more angle in some cases and a deficit in others but will always even out at 180 in every case. Even though I mostly understood in theory, I was still relieved to see the angles match when lifted off the surface, lol.
@@Petey194 Yeah, for a few minutes I thought the flerfs were going to go unmolested this time.
Updated the desmos file to make the relationships and the operation of the animation a bit clearer and more intuitive.
desmos.com/calculator/swjmhmidh8
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394Took me a minute to figure out what I was looking at. You're drawing a square on a plane, then dragging just tilts that plane from the horizontal. And the top diagram is showing the projection of the tilted plane, onto the 'horizontal' and showing the way the angle would be measured. So although the square never changes shape and the angle is always 90 degrees WITHIN THE PLANE OF THE SQUARE, the birds eye view shows what a surveyor's measure of the angle would look like.
Shows that measuring the angle in a plane other than the one containing the angle, gives..... 'interesting' result.
@@mikefochtman7164 Perfect. Or you could do the same thing in 2 seconds with a piece of cardboard... 😅
But then again there is something slippery about real world demos. The brain might swap attention from the near corner angle over to the thin slice that got foreshortened, leaving the impression that the angle decreased ─ or fail to accurately perceive that the near angle has opened up. Being able to accurately see that kinda thing in the real world is one of those abilities that may need to be built up by exercises like drawing from real life.
Brian said "it's impossible that this triangle would ever have more than 180°" and so demonstrates the "I know that I know what you mean so I'm not going to listen" attitude that is so blinding. As Brian demonstrated, three points that can see each other with no refraction will generate a planar triangle using lines of sight whatever the surface is and whatever orientation vertical is at, at the three locations. What Brian keeps on avoiding hearing is that the angle measured is NOT the angle between the sight lines. It is the angle between the horizontal bearings. That means, as this video demonstrates very nicely, the angles measured are the same as in the matching triangle drawn on a 0 feet elevation everywhere surface. On a sphere that is a spherical triangle which Brian admits would have a total of more than 180 degrees. Surveyors did it that way to establish position in the grid independently of the vertical component. On a flat Earth this makes no overall difference to the total of the angles which is always 180 degrees. On a globe the orientation of vertical varies and so affects the results with the total being greater than 180 degrees, as was measured.
So why does the orientation of vertical make a difference when taking horizontal bearings? Imagine you are standing at one corner of a horizontal equilateral triangle and each of your arms points at a different other corner. As the triangle is laid horizontal the angle between the two horizontal bearings is obviously 60 degrees. Now imagine the triangle swings down and towards you until it hangs directly below your feet with one corner at your feet and the two lower corners equally to either side of you. Now your arms are pointing down and to each side of you. To take a horizontal bearing you raise your arms to the horizontal while keeping them pointing towards their corner, and see that they are 180 degrees apart.
Here's an experiment that NO flat earther will ever do. Start from any point (preferably at a large salt flat), go 1 mile. Then, turn exactly 60 degrees, and go another mile. Next, turn exactly 60 degrees again, and go 1 more mile. If the Earth is flat, they should end up at exactly the same spot that they started. Yes, isn't measuring spherical excess, this is proving it's existence on the surface of Earth.
The accuracy required to see that you ended up at a different place in this scenario would be impossible to achieve. The spherical excess in such a triangle would be approximately 0.006 arc-seconds. Good theodolites measure angles with an accuracy of ~1 arc-second. Your final position expected on a globe Earth would differ from the initial one by less than a micrometer. If _anyone_ attempted this, they would find that they ended up in exactly the same place again - at least, as far as they could tell.
My point being, you'd need a much larger triangle to see any kind of difference.
I can make a real life fe model with air pressure and flowing water and dirt etc .. can you make a globe model in real life using your gravity to hang it in a vacuum and suck the water to it? Then get that water to flow all different directions too.. oh and make a thin layer of air pressure around it too..
If gravity was true you would be able to manipulate it to prove it’s the cause of your effect
@@scienceitoutverticals are all one orientation
@@Auto..Payge. "I can make a real life fe model with air pressure and flowing water and dirt etc .."
Cool. Can you make a real life model of a thunderstorm? With miniature cumulonimbus clouds, lightning, strong winds, rain and all? If not, is that evidence for non-existence of thunderstorms?
"verticals are all one orientation"
You're saying that.
Measurements are saying the opposite.
I'm going to trust the measurements, I think.
@@Auto..Payge. You can make a real life fe model?
Surely it has the atmospheric pressure gradient that goes to a vacuum at the tippy top of your dome, right?
Surely, by flowing water you mean the water cycle, right?
With rivers, ocean currents & weather.
Your dirt has geologic layers & activity, right?
Tectonic plate movement and such below the surface.
Oh yeah, I forget flerfs don't even have the littlest clue about physics, there's no such thing as "sucking".
"Sucking" is specifically something being pushed into a low pressure region because there's less stuff pushing in opposition.
You do realize that the vacuum above our atmosphere only makes no sense on a flat earth, right?
Of course you can't, you're a flat earther.
Uh yeah you can measure gravity... well I guess you could never.
But more importantly, it's just blatantly how things work if gravity somehow ceased to exist, reality would be 100% different.
Denying gravity can only be achieved by the dumbest of dumb.
Maybe you mean you deny what causes gravity, because I seriously can't fathom anyone denying something as simple as things falling towards the earth.
Well done. i wish i had your skill with Geogebra.
Up until 1:00 with Jeran and Brian talking about the triangle, I'm trying to understand what their argument is. Flat earthers argue that we don't observe spherical excess, and Brian and Jeran are arguing that the globe prediction is to measure no spherical excess, so they are just arguing that the globe model matches observation. I don't understand their game here.
I think the main thrust of their argument is that the 3 measurements make a triangle that has its points and sides all lying in the same plane and therefore excess from elevated positions cannot be observed or measured. It's a normal thought to have I suppose but didn't do much beyond having it.
@@Petey194 Believe it or not, I had this exact conversation with Jesse Koslowski over dinner. I drew a triangle on a sheet of paper on a clipboard, then I balanced that clipboard on three extended fingers, at the vertices. I couldn't understand how line-of-sight observations could result in spherical excess, since it was a planar triangle, as represented by the rigid clipboard. It took a while, but Jesse was finally able to explain that the angles we're measuring aren't line of sight but rather azimuthal in nature. Then it all made sense. 🙂
@@FlatEarthMath It's good that Brian and Jeran gave this some thought but mathematicians and expert surveyors like Jesse don't say spherical excess is a thing for no reason. Jeran was given the answers by McToon on that livestream but chose to give up trying to understand while Brian just straight accused globers of being dishonest. I think Jeran tried harder than Brian. If they were truly curious, they wouldn't stop -persuing- pursuing this until they got answers. If I was Flerf, I'd see this as an opportunity to stick it to the globers and prove them wrong in their claim. Hasn't been done so far! 😛
@@FlatEarthMath I couldn't see how the spherical excess was getting observed either, but I think it makes sense to me now. "Up" according to the plane of the planar triangle above Earth is hunched over leaning slightly forward according to an observer at one of the vertices of the triangle. Brian's model at 0:00 shows that quite well actually. If a person is at a vertex, hunched over so that they are standing up according to the triangle's plane, and also with both arms pointed along the triangle's legs to the other two vertices, then they will see spherical excess when they straighten up and stand "up" according to gravity. Since the other two pencils in Brian's diagram radiate out from the center of the globe, when the observer straightens up and now holds their arms level and points them at the zeniths of the other two vertices of the triangle, their arms had to make a bigger angle to account for the fact that the other two zeniths diverge and the arms are pointed at a higher point on those zeniths. The divergence of the zeniths helps me see where the spherical excess comes from.
It makes sense once you realize the observations being made at each vertex is along their local horizontal (which are all tilted relative each other). So unlike a planar triangle where all the vertices and edges are either coplanar or lie on a parallel plane, these observations don’t. It’s like the V shape at each vertex are neither coplanar or lie on a parallel plane at a different elevation. Not sure if I explained well, I’m a visual learner so it was clear once I drew it out.
what does he mean by "invoke" spherical excess?
i don't get it.
This is part of how the whole flerf thing perpetuates; the guy with the clay is right about *his* claim; in his setup the angles add up to 180.
The problem is that *his* setup is _not what surveyors do_ when they measure spherical excess. His setup very deliberately _removes_ the surface as a factor, reducing it to a triangle in a flat plane and yeah, in a flat plane the angles add up to 180, that's not a surprise.
What is a surprise is that when we *do* follow the surface of earth the angles add up to more than 180. This is not debateable, it has been well documented ever since our instruments became accurate enough to see it.
So the real question is: why does clay-man try to debunk a measurement *along a surface* with one that *does not follow the surface*?
I'll be optimistic and assume he genuinely doesn't understand the problem.
You didn't use Gary's rubber bands to do the angles.
I would love to hear our South African friend debunk this!
Hey Brian, now, from a position perpendicular to the plane of your triangle in free space, trace the path of those strings on the globe below. Oh, would you lookie there, they aren't actually straight (great circle) lines at all...in fact, they're sorta pinched in to get rid of what? That's right, Brian, it's that pesky spherical excess that you're still not comprehending.
ooh, you've just given me an idea to do a great circle video 👍😄and it'll feature Bev from Try Thinking. Get Christmas out of the way first! 🎄
😢😮😅😊 I confess, I'm the culprit here. Or instigator at least.
I pointed out exactly that (fake) argument to them flat Earthers a few months ago, how to use direct lines from hilltop to hilltop to claim
_"... bbbutt there is no spherical excess without a container ...."_
Oops, "without a container" ?? 😧🤔
Seems the needle jumped over a few tracks on that old record 💽 It's simply too worn out ...😊😊😊
😆
The flat earthers need to hire a surveyor and do the measures themselves. Saying it doesn't work in a drawing isn't the same as actually measuring the excess. Of Course they don't know how to do spherical math.
We have.
Ok who and where.@@Auto..Payge.
You should do a field test
oh sure, make line of sight measurements from east africa to western europe.
I'll clear the clouds for ya
😆
Typical Flers = Straw-man or misrepresent the globe position, then say the incorrect globe position you have made up is BS and act like a tool about it.
I asked a rather prominent UA-cam flerf (who claimed spherical excess was impossible) to go to 0 Lat / 0 Long on a globe and draw a line from there to the North Pole, turn right 90° and draw a line back to the equator, then turn right 90° again and draw a line back to where he started. I knew I had him when he abused me and started deleting my comments 🤣
Petey you can’t Measure 📐 a Triangle that has more or less than 180 degrees for several reasons.
1. You do not have a baseline, with a triangle you have 180, what’s your baseline for use in reality ?
2. You can’t measure a Triangle with curved lines.
3. The Hypotenuse of every claimed spherical triangle is shorter than an actual triangle, yet the opposite and adjacent are equal ?
4. What you did in your video was measure three separate angle, and then added their angles up together, that is not a triangle that is three separate angles from three separate locations, which is why you thought that there was an elevation issue, you don’t understand surveying the triangle is measured from one observer and location.
You also didn’t curve your surface from what you show you just did maths, maths after you used three separate angle measurements, that is not surveying practices Petey.
I used a geometry program to create lines and arcs for 2 scenarios. Where those lines and arcs meet there are angles. Those angles can be measured with or without tangents. You might not think the surface was curved for the 2nd scenario but it was. It was a small section of a sphere with radius 6371km. Click the link in the description and see for yourself. Just zoom out and you'll see the curve. It just looks flat because we're dealing with small distances of 20km or so. Yes, 3 separate angles agree with the spherical triangle but more importantly, they agree with reality, hence spherical excess. If in reality we always get 180° for those 3 seperate angles then that would suggest all verticals are parallel (FE). But in reality all verticals diverge with respect to each other just like in the 2nd scenario and that's how you get excess of 180° (globe). It's geometry Brian and only one scenario agrees with reality. It's a slam dunk I'm afraid. So stop saying you CAN'T THIS and you CAN'T THAT when I just did! Game over! 😊
@@Petey194 No Petey your showing that you understand how to use software, but that you don’t understand measurement in reality ?
First it doesn’t matter wether there were arcs created or not, your process is not the process used in surveying, your process is only possible within software and maths.
Let me explain when they measure using Theodolite’s in surveying between three mountains 🏔 they are measuring from only one location, the full Triangle is created from this point.
The surveyors will know at least one of the distances involved, and will then use trigonometry which is triangles 180 degrees, to work out the other distances via the angles and known distances, with a levelled ( horizontal ) Theodolite and it’s Azimuth plate.
Now Spherical Excess is exactly what it sounds like, as when you take one of these measured areas like I detail above, and you add the globes unmeasured R value, what happens is you curve the straight lines of sight, that were required to make the measurement in the first place, and when you do this over a convex surface, you INCREASE the internal area within the lines as now the lines are curved outwards from straight.
What this does is create surface area internally that doesn’t actually exist, and this is Spherical Excess, and it is the reason why Google Earth shorten the hypotenuse of all its claimed spherical triangles, as it’s the only way that Google can mathematically keep distance somewhat correct, so they create this spherical excess by curving straight lines, but then they must take it away again as it doesn’t fit REALITY ????
No there are no diverging verticals Petey, this is yet another software based claim that has zero connection to reality, I will explain….
In surveying they survey all the land using what’s known as rise over run, this is a method of measuring elevation changes over distance.
All the rises are parallel verticals, and all the runs are parallel horizontals, as they must be for the process to work and function in reality, this process is used all across the world everywhere Petey, it is the go to standard for measurement of the land, and as I stated above ⬆️ if they were to diverge those verticals and horizontals, they would end up with Spherical Excess, which would be surface area that is NON existent.
So not only do all the vertical and horizontals need to be parallel for the process to work, but if they curved them they would have to then either change their measurements like Google Earth does, something that is purely mathematical and sits outside measurement, or they would have to uncurve the verticals and horizontals again, as anything else is NOT conducive to reality.
Petey you are being deceived by people on your own side….
@@BriansLogic You are in complete denial of reality
We only use Euclidean geometry in reality.
All verticals are the same orientation. We understand perpendicular right?
If you mess up verticals then of course your end will be messed up too
You can’t just say radials are now verticals. Sorry.
So which one describes reality?
So, why would all verticals be parallel?
Do you think there's an absolute horizontal reference somewhere?
Hey @Autodidactic153. You were very vocal in the Try Thinking chat yesterday. Cat got your toungue here? If all verticals were parallel then 3 observers would *ALWAYS* measure angles that sum to exactly 180°, as the geometry shows, in every instance no matter the distances involved. That's not what happens in reality is it? Excess of 180 is always observed in reality. The greater the seperation, the greater the excess. You, Bev, Paper... you're all living in a fantasy world spreading misinformation and it seems deliberate at this point.
Well then, I'll just reply "You can't just say all verticals are the same orientation." This assertion holds just as much weight as yours; blank denial.
The difference is, one of these holds up to real world measurements, the other doesn't. Turns out it actually isn't quite radial because we measure by local gravity, not the planet's centre, but that's a far cry from going the literal opposite direction...