What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?

  • 40 Replies
  • 37235 Views
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« on: April 26, 2013, 11:26:35 PM »
Searching the forums, I found this thread - Question about lines of latitude - which has remained unanswered for 7 years, and just wanted to ask a related question:

If the earth's circumference at the equator is ~40,000km, at what latitude is it's circumference 20,000km? The North pole centred FE map would indicate that this would occur at 45 degrees, the bipolar FE map does not allow for a circumference measurement at the equator, so is useless, and RET would dictate that this circumference would be found at 60 degrees.

This is not an impossible task, so has anyone found an answer?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2013, 12:04:45 PM »
According to this RE chart, a circumference of 20,000km is approximately 3,300km to the north pole.

If we put a 20,000km circle on the FE map, using the formula r=C/pi/2, where r is the radius, or distance to the north pole and C is the circumference of the circle, we get approximately 3,200km. 

Once again, real world distances match FET.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 12:29:44 PM by jroa »

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5046
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2013, 12:26:15 PM »
According to this RE chart, a circumference of 20,000km is approximately 33,000km to the north pole.

If we put a 20,000km circle on the FE map, using the formula r=C/pi/2, where r is the radius, or distance to the north pole and C is the circumference of the circle, we get approximately 3,200km. 

Once again, real world distances match FET.

I'm not sure what numbers you were looking at in that chart, but I saw that it was between 3,240 km and 3350 km.  This occurred at approximately 60 degrees latitude where the circumference is between 19,480 km and 20,090 km.  This same chart can be used for the southern hemisphere too.  What is the circumference of your FE map at 60 degrees south?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2013, 12:28:55 PM »
Yes, i meant approximately 3,300km.  I will correct my post.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2013, 04:14:02 PM »
Hmm, it seems I missed a crucial point in my original question. Does the flat earth have a circumference of 40,000km at the equator? If so, how is this reconciled with the distance of 10,000km from the equator to the North pole? This distance was originally used to define the metre, so it's pretty important that it's accurate.

Also, there is still another unanswered question on this subject:

What is the circumference of your FE map at 60 degrees south?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2013, 10:15:02 PM »
I'm also curious about the equator. 

The circumference is 40,074 km.

This means a radius of 6,377 km (N. pole to equator-FE) or (center of sphere to equator-RE)

That would work for either one, however, the measured surface distance from the N. pole to the equator is 10,001 km.  That would give us a circumference at the equator of 62,838 km.  ???

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2013, 11:58:47 PM »
I'm also curious about the equator. 

The circumference is 40,074 km.

This means a radius of 6,377 km (N. pole to equator-FE) or (center of sphere to equator-RE)

That would work for either one, however, the measured surface distance from the N. pole to the equator is 10,001 km.  That would give us a circumference at the equator of 62,838 km.  ???

Something of a conundrum eh?! The measured distances match up beautifully with RET, but aren't even within a bull's roar of FET! Must be some magical distortion of distances or something going on there ;)
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2013, 06:13:04 AM »
I suspect that this thread will go the way of the 1 referenced in the original post which is a shame as it's an interesting question.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2013, 06:18:01 AM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.

Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2013, 06:59:50 AM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2013, 07:14:43 AM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2013, 07:19:45 AM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2013, 07:22:47 AM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2013, 07:25:39 AM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2013, 07:31:16 AM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2013, 07:54:45 AM »
Jroa, do you think that the maps of a country are wrong when it comes to distances, especially distances between cities?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2013, 08:03:04 AM »
Jroa, do you think that the maps of a country are wrong when it comes to distances, especially distances between cities?
I see you are trying to take the topic astray, but I will bight.  Maps can be accurate enough to be used for navigation.  Is that what you wanted to hear?

Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2013, 08:14:47 AM »
How is asking about distances taking this topic astray?

You can get a rough approximation of the distance between north pole and the equator by taking known distances between cities, landmarks etc, a bit of trig and then adding it up. It's not as accurate as a 10000km long tape measure but it surely close enough to tell if the distance is closer to 6300km or 10000km.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2013, 08:22:59 AM »
How is asking about distances taking this topic astray?

You can get a rough approximation of the distance between north pole and the equator by taking known distances between cities, landmarks etc, a bit of trig and then adding it up. It's not as accurate as a 10000km long tape measure but it surely close enough to tell if the distance is closer to 6300km or 10000km.

Your claim was about distances, yet you do not even try to prove that your distance is right and ours are wrong.  I see, another lazy noob.

Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2013, 08:30:16 AM »
How is asking about distances taking this topic astray?

You can get a rough approximation of the distance between north pole and the equator by taking known distances between cities, landmarks etc, a bit of trig and then adding it up. It's not as accurate as a 10000km long tape measure but it surely close enough to tell if the distance is closer to 6300km or 10000km.

Your claim was about distances, yet you do not even try to prove that your distance is right and ours are wrong.  I see, another lazy noob.
What claim did I make?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2013, 08:37:11 AM »
How is asking about distances taking this topic astray?

You can get a rough approximation of the distance between north pole and the equator by taking known distances between cities, landmarks etc, a bit of trig and then adding it up. It's not as accurate as a 10000km long tape measure but it surely close enough to tell if the distance is closer to 6300km or 10000km.

Your claim was about distances, yet you do not even try to prove that your distance is right and ours are wrong.  I see, another lazy noob.
What claim did I make?
The one about the north pole and the equator and chit.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2013, 08:53:06 AM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2013, 09:18:20 AM »
How is asking about distances taking this topic astray?

You can get a rough approximation of the distance between north pole and the equator by taking known distances between cities, landmarks etc, a bit of trig and then adding it up. It's not as accurate as a 10000km long tape measure but it surely close enough to tell if the distance is closer to 6300km or 10000km.

Your claim was about distances, yet you do not even try to prove that your distance is right and ours are wrong.  I see, another lazy noob.
What claim did I make?
The one about the north pole and the equator and chit.
You asserted that the distance from the equator to the north pole hasn't been accurately measured "by sailing a ship all the way" (bit difficult to do for a ship but a sub might do it). We do know though that Havana is basically 1600km north of Panama, Havana to Tampa about 530km, Tampa to Atlanta is about 600km north etc. With a bit of work you can then work out a rough distance for the north pole to any latitude (within reason).
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2013, 01:24:37 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2013, 01:34:13 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

Well this is all pretty telling isn't it?  Assertions with no evidence are not much use.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2013, 01:36:29 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

Well this is all pretty telling isn't it?  Assertions with no evidence are not much use.
Do you have proof that Bigfoot does not exist?  That would be a hard thing to prove, even if it is true.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2013, 01:38:30 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

Well this is all pretty telling isn't it?  Assertions with no evidence are not much use.
Do you have proof that Bigfoot does not exist?  That would be a hard thing to prove, even if it is true.

We have been over this song and dance.  You cannot prove a negative statement.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2013, 01:40:22 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

Well this is all pretty telling isn't it?  Assertions with no evidence are not much use.
Do you have proof that Bigfoot does not exist?  That would be a hard thing to prove, even if it is true.

We have been over this song and dance.  You cannot prove a negative statement.
Then why are you asking me to prove that no one has ever measured the distance from the equator to the north pole?  ???

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2013, 01:43:21 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

Well this is all pretty telling isn't it?  Assertions with no evidence are not much use.
Do you have proof that Bigfoot does not exist?  That would be a hard thing to prove, even if it is true.

We have been over this song and dance.  You cannot prove a negative statement.
Then why are you asking me to prove that no one has ever measured the distance from the equator to the north pole?  ???

That is not what I ahve asked you to do at any point.  I asked you to back up your claim that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is only calculated.  Please prove the positive statement.  I do not care about the implied negative.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2013, 01:47:58 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

Well this is all pretty telling isn't it?  Assertions with no evidence are not much use.
Do you have proof that Bigfoot does not exist?  That would be a hard thing to prove, even if it is true.

We have been over this song and dance.  You cannot prove a negative statement.
Then why are you asking me to prove that no one has ever measured the distance from the equator to the north pole?  ???

That is not what I ahve asked you to do at any point.  I asked you to back up your claim that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is only calculated.  Please prove the positive statement.  I do not care about the implied negative.

If it has been measured, and not just calculated, then once again, please provide evidence.  I can not provide evidence that something has not happened.