An early method by which the Earth's circumference was calculated was measuring the sun's angle from the vertical on the equinox. On a spherical Earth, the sun's apparent position is due to your position on the Earth's surface, rather than perspective as would be the case on a flat Earth.
Flat earthers frequently take the original measurement performed by Eratosthenes, assume a flat Earth rather than a spherical Earth, and calculate the altitude of the sun instead of the circumference of spherical Earth.
If the Earth is flat, this method of calculating the altitude of the sun should "work" regardless of where the measurements were taken. Likewise, if the Earth is a sphere, then the method of calculating its circumference should "work" regardless of where the measurements were taken. I have "work" in quotes because nothing is ever going to be perfect. Measurement error plagues everything we measure, leading to inaccuracies and noise. In this experiment, maybe you don't have your exact coordinates, or maybe your stick isn't perfectly vertical, or maybe you performed your measurement at local noon rather than when the sun was highest in the sky. All these contribute to error and noise in the data, but this noise should be random.
Model comparison is an important part of science. It involves analyzing the ability of different models to explain the data. Noise and measurement error is expected, so multiple data points are collected whenever possible and statistical techniques are used to extract the signal from the noise and make sure the noise follows the patterns we expect from measurement error. When errors are not random and uncorrelated with aspects of the experiment, that is a big sign that the model is wrong or that we are ignoring some confounding effect.
In the context of this experiment, if the Earth is flat then we should see all the estimates for the sun's altitude cluster fairly closely around the true altitude. Measurements made at different latitudes should tend to give higher or lower estimates for the sun's altitude with equal probability. On the other hand, the estimates for the circumference of a spherical Earth should have a much larger range, and the distance of individual estimates from the mean should depend on the latitude where the measurements were made.
Alternatively, if the Earth is a sphere then we should see all the estimates for the Earth's circumference cluster fairly closely around the true circumference. Measurements
... keep reading on reddit ➡I understand the Spherical Equivalent (SEQ) = sphere power + (cylinder power/2) if the axis is 180 or 90.
I’ve also heard of the 30-45-60 rule to find the % of the cylinder power. Can you use this to calculate cylinder power then plug it in?
As for other axis numbers, how do you find the cylinder power at 180 or 90? Do you use the C’ = C x sin (a)^2 formula?
I’m not confident in my math. I’m a student doing research and I’m trying to find the mean SEQ for a set of data. Any help would be very appreciated!
so i have to do a very lengthy project (4000 words essay for the IB programme extended essay) and i’m doing my essay about dropping spherical balls on sand/dirt/whatever surface and measuring the depth and diameter of the crater. i need it to be complex so the independent variable of my experiment will be changing the angle of impact of the balls when it hits the surface.
however, due to coronavirus and the limitations of my high school lab anyway, i will need to roll my ball down a tilted surface and let it hit the sand. however, the acceleration at which it hits the surface will not be the same as when i drop the balls horizontally/for any other angle of impact.
if i were to graph this etc., how would i calculate to make this more fair and to make sure it would give me answers to actually making this accurate.
Example
Most projectiles in Overwatch use a spherical volume for colliding with players, but can pass through infinitely small gaps in map geometry. Sigma balls are one of the few exceptions that are also treated as a sphere for map collision. In most cases this would be a pure disadvantage, making it harder to shoot around corners and narrow angles, but Sigma balls can actually benefit from this because the curvature of the sphere can affect the bounce angle. By varying what part of the sphere hits a corner, you can get any angle in between what you'd get from a direct impact with the wall and what you'd get from an unobstructed shot.
Is there a conventional way of finding the angles between 2 arcs in a spherical triangle?
If it isn’t possible to cast a shadow, would they essentially appear one dimensional, or would we be unable to see them at all due to a complete lack of contrast in reflected light?
In this document (https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/neutron-diffusion-theory/finite-spherical-reactor/) they say that we can replace the 3D laplacian with the 1D laplacian because the system is independent of angle. Is it always true?
I need to solve the same time-independent helmholtz equation as in the link, with phi zero on the sphere. There are no sources. Can I then also assume the system is independent of angle?
Is there a formula for calculating the angles within a triangle, each point representing a point on the surface of the sphere?
For example; imagine if the earth was a perfect sphere and three points on the surface of the earth, say Easter Island, Gizeh and Angkor Wat... the triangle these points make... how would I go about calculating this?
Thanks for your consideration.
