The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Colossal Death Robot on May 10, 2009, 11:54:57 PM
-
Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"
Circumference: 78225 miles
Diameter: 24,900 miles
So what is the distance around the equator in FE theory?
-
anyone?
-
anyone?
FEers dare not answer... Any number creates a contradiction for them. Tom Bishop leads the dodging claiming, that in spite that FEesr know the circumference and diameter, they haven't the resources to measure the nearer and shorter Equator.
-
and they ignore the fact that it has been measured? pretty precicely...
-
and they ignore the fact that it has been measured? pretty precicely...
They invoke the Conspiracy and specifically that those doing the measuring were under the undue influence and bias of RET.
-
well then why do they base their circumference and diameter of their FE on the measurments made by RE'ers.
If their measurement for the diameter of the earth is the same as the RE measurment, why is their circumference at the equator different from the RE measurement? I dont get it.....
-
would u like multiple choice? Or true false? I can make it nice and simple.
-
So what is the distance around the equator in FE theory?
62,945 km
-
So what is the distance around the equator in FE theory?
62,945 km
Do you have any evidence of your outlandish claim? Do you admit that the Equator lies halfway between the Edge and the NP? (Watch this folks! RS has fallen into a FE paradox. He should start to dodge any post now.)
-
Do you have any evidence of your outlandish claim?
Yes, I divided the figure for the Earth's circumference given in the FAQ by two.
-
ok, you could have kept it miles to keep things simple. But basically you did the cirumference (78,225miles) divided by two, which is 39112.5miles (then you converted to Km) correct? Which is a faster way of taking the diameter (24900miles) and dividing it by 2 (geting 12450miles - which is the diameter of the circle made by the equator if on a flat earth) and then multiplying by Pi (to get 39112.5miles).
So heres the RE measurments:
Earth's Circumference at the Equator: 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 km)
Earth's Circumference Between the North and South Poles: 24,859.82 miles (40,008 km)
Notice that 39112.5miles does not = 24901 miles
So yeah, they stole the RE measurment for the earths circumference and thought well, if the earth was actually flat, then the circumference of what they think is a sphere, is actually the measurment for the diameter of our flat earth. (then they used it to make their ficticous flat earth circumference, which doesnt disagree with a RE measurment, because we dont have one in our spherical world lol)
Here they made 2 errors, first they stole the measurment for the circumference at the equator instead of the one that goes through the poles (lol - someone didnt try too hard with their steal here, the RE isnt a perfect sphere). Their second error, is that they stole a RE measurment. Because if they take this one measurent, it means they are approving of the RE measurment for the diameter of their flat earth, but they for no reason at all reject their other measurments (to keep it simple we will just talk about that of the equator).
I mean fair enough if you claim that all the RE measurments are wrong, and you need to prove this somehow and give us your measurments, because our ones seem to work pretty fine for, well everything like gps, flights, car trips across europe, whatever. the circumference of your earth is bigger then ours, this not only fucks up the measurments for the equator, but for the northeren and southern hemispheres.
In conclusion, without actually looking at the shape of the earth, you can simply mathmatically deduce the shape of the earth by measuring a couple of its dimesions. You cant claim these measurments are just a made up conspirisy because these measurements are used every day by hundreds of thousands of people.
-
response anyone?
-
ok, you could have kept it miles to keep things simple.
The Imperial system of measure is not simple in any sense of the word, and I refuse to use it.
But basically you did the cirumference (78,225miles) divided by two, which is 39112.5miles (then you converted to Km) correct? Which is a faster way of taking the diameter (24900miles) and dividing it by 2 (geting 12450miles - which is the diameter of the circle made by the equator if on a flat earth) and then multiplying by Pi (to get 39112.5miles).
So heres the RE measurments:
Earth's Circumference at the Equator: 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 km)
Earth's Circumference Between the North and South Poles: 24,859.82 miles (40,008 km)
Notice that 39112.5miles does not = 24901 miles
So yeah, they stole the RE measurment for the earths circumference and thought well, if the earth was actually flat, then the circumference of what they think is a sphere, is actually the measurment for the diameter of our flat earth. (then they used it to make their ficticous flat earth circumference, which doesnt disagree with a RE measurment, because we dont have one in our spherical world lol)
Here they made 2 errors, first they stole the measurment for the circumference at the equator instead of the one that goes through the poles (lol - someone didnt try too hard with their steal here, the RE isnt a perfect sphere). Their second error, is that they stole a RE measurment. Because if they take this one measurent, it means they are approving of the RE measurment for the diameter of their flat earth, but they for no reason at all reject their other measurments (to keep it simple we will just talk about that of the equator).
I mean fair enough if you claim that all the RE measurments are wrong, and you need to prove this somehow and give us your measurments, because our ones seem to work pretty fine for, well everything like gps, flights, car trips across europe, whatever. the circumference of your earth is bigger then ours, this not only fucks up the measurments for the equator, but for the northeren and southern hemispheres.
In conclusion, without actually looking at the shape of the earth, you can simply mathmatically deduce the shape of the earth by measuring a couple of its dimesions. You cant claim these measurments are just a made up conspirisy because these measurements are used every day by hundreds of thousands of people.
Where is your source indicating that the measurements were stolen from RET?
-
........ seriously thats your response. wow. Try a bit harder honestly. Possibly that the measurments for the earth were made by RE'ers, FE'ers havent made them, so when asked what the siZe of their earth is, they just used some of the measurments already in use, to avoid conflict. But you run into a SLIGHT problem, beacause only one measurment can be the same, because a circle is different to a sphere..... So they chose to use the diameter, and then they proceeded to use the wrong measurment anyway, because they are stupid.
-
a circle is different to a sphere
What a remarkable observation.
and then they proceeded to use the wrong measurment anyway
Where is your evidence that it is the wrong measurement? Have you made that measurement yourself, and confirmed that the FE figure is incorrect?
-
ok well first of all, its not a FE figure. Its a RE figure. Because its based on RE measurments. Why would i need to make this measurment myself? Personal accounts isnt the only way of information recording. Ok so you want me, with no money, time or resources, to go measure the eQuator. When the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY hasnt even made a measurment themselves? So to prove them wrong, i cant use the 99.9999% accepted figure used by millions of people reliably, i actually have to measure it myself. When you havent, yet claim that the eQuator is bigger then generally accepted. Its hypocrisy at its finest.
If i cant refute a figure without measuring it myself, then the FE society shouldnt be able to give a figure they havent measured themselves. They need to either admit they have no idea, or stop trying to make the dimensions of the FE kind of conform to the already made measurments on the RE.
-
ok well first of all, its not a FE figure. Its a RE figure. Because its based on RE measurments. Why would i need to make this measurment myself? Personal accounts isnt the only way of information recording. Ok so you want me, with no money, time or resources, to go measure the eQuator. When the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY hasnt even made a measurment themselves? So to prove them wrong, i cant use the 99.9999% accepted figure used by millions of people reliably, i actually have to measure it myself. When you havent, yet claim that the eQuator is bigger then generally accepted. Its hypocrisy at its finest.
Latitude can be measured in FET just the same as in RET. The distance from the Equator to the North Pole would be the same in either theory; the personal beliefs of the observer are irrelevant. I don't know why the RE equatorial circumference was used as the FE diameter in the FAQ; you'd have to ask whoever wrote it.
-
Ok so you admit the FAQ measurment is wrong. Then you admit your posted measurment for the circumference at the diameter is wrong.
Also your wrong, there is no reason for them to be the same from north to south pole. Its just as logical for the eQuatorial circumference to be the same in FE and in RE and have the distance between the poles different. Rather then currently thought, that the poles distance is the same, and the eQuator is different.
You also run into huge problems if you pick the eQuatorial circumference as the same as the RE measurment, beacause you start to run out of space to fit all the northern hemisphere land mass into the circular northern hemisphere, when this isnt a problem in a round earth with this measurment. No matter which one you pick, your screwed. So dont pick either, stop pretending, and admit FE'ers have no idea how big their earth is.
Note- i meant simple as in, the rest of the post was already in miles. I hate miles, but thats what the figures were in so i just used it.
-
Ok so you admit the FAQ measurment is wrong. Then you admit your posted measurment for the circumference at the diameter is wrong.
Also your wrong, there is no reason for them to be the same from north to south pole. Its just as logical for the eQuatorial circumference to be the same in FE and in RE and have the distance between the poles different. Rather then currently thought, that the poles distance is the same, and the eQuator is different.
Nope, the Equator is a fundamental (if imaginary) construct in RET. In FET it is an arbitrary circle, and as such would be very difficult to measure accurately. Meridians have geometric significance in both models, and so RE measurements from North to South are much more likely to also be valid in FET.
Note- i meant simple as in, the rest of the post was already in miles. I hate miles, but thats what the figures were in so i just used it.
The FAQ should really use SI measurement. I don't know why it doesn't. Until it does, I will continue to convert all units to SI before performing any analysis using them.
-
Nope, the Equator is a fundamental (if imaginary) construct in RET. In FET it is an arbitrary circle, and as such would be very difficult to measure accurately.
It's strange how people are able to measure it so accurately then.
Curious I'd say.
-
It's strange how people are able to measure it so accurately then.
Curious I'd say.
Well, any one point on it can be easily measured as the Equator is the locus of points which lie halfway along some meridian. Measuring its length would be a more challenging task.
-
Nope, the Equator is a fundamental (if imaginary) construct in RET. In FET it is an arbitrary circle, and as such would be very difficult to measure accurately. Meridians have geometric significance in both models, and so RE measurements from North to South are much more likely to also be valid in FET.
Sorry what? I really dont follow. How is the equator an arbitrary circle in FE??? It still sepereates the northern and southern hemispheres, well northern and southern "parts" in FE i guess.
Also your point about their "significance" is completely insignificant (irony yes lol). Because its about which measument was made correctly in FE opinion. For some reason they decided that the RE measurment for the eqautorial circumference should be the measurment for the diameter of their earth. Or they did this by accident and they were meant to decide that the RE measurment for the circumference around the poles was measured correctly, and that our circumference was measured incorrectly. I want to know where the hell this decision came from. Why do they believe any of the measurments?? Why just one?
-
Well, any one point on it can be easily measured as the Equator is the locus of points which lie halfway along some meridian. Measuring its length would be a more challenging task.
Well if you can measure one point between two lines of longitude then you can just extrapolate from that to get your full circumference can you not?
How is it any more challenging to make this measurment, then the one between the poles.
-
ok well first of all, its not a FE figure. Its a RE figure. Because its based on RE measurments. Why would i need to make this measurment myself? Personal accounts isnt the only way of information recording. Ok so you want me, with no money, time or resources, to go measure the eQuator. When the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY hasnt even made a measurment themselves? So to prove them wrong, i cant use the 99.9999% accepted figure used by millions of people reliably, i actually have to measure it myself. When you havent, yet claim that the eQuator is bigger then generally accepted. Its hypocrisy at its finest.
Latitude can be measured in FET just the same as in RET. The distance from the Equator to the North Pole would be the same in either theory; the personal beliefs of the observer are irrelevant. I don't know why the RE equatorial circumference was used as the FE diameter in the FAQ; you'd have to ask whoever wrote it.
So tell me how far is from Oslo to Stockholm? What do you get when you calculate it by RE's Great Circle method? What do you get when you get using FE?
Here are my answers?
Actual: 417 kilometers or 225 nautical miles. Reference: http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Oslo,+Norway/to/Stockholm,+Sweden (http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Oslo,+Norway/to/Stockholm,+Sweden)
RET Great Circle:
Olso: 59 57 N 10 42 E, Reference: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html)
Stockholm: 59 17 N 18 3 E, Ibid
419km Reference: Google Earth 5.0, Ruler Tool
FET
We need to follow RS's (inane) comment that he can calculate the distance around the Equator in FE by simple geometry. Let's apply it to this problem too!
First let's calculate the distance around the FE on the 59th N.
First the radius. The 59th N is 31 of 180, so the radius of the 59th is (the diameter of the FE)/2 * 31/180 = (24900 miles)/2 * 31/180 = 2,144.16667 miles.
Second the length around the 59th is that radius * pi = 6,736 miles
Third the distance from 100 42' to 180 3' = (180 3') - (100 42'))/360 * that radius = 7.35/360 * 6,736 miles = 137.5 miles = 221 km.
Fourth we can get a great upper bound by using the taxi cab metric and adding in the FE distance north to south and using this more southern latitude. The north-south distance would be (40'/3600)(diameter of the FE)/2 = 23 miles = 37 km. So the upper bound is 258 km.
So we have a conclusive, real-world demonstration that RE's prediction of 419km is better than FE's prediction of less than 258km against the actual of 417km.
-
can you say owned?
I also missed this bit somehow.
Latitude can be measured in FET just the same as in RET. The distance from the Equator to the North Pole would be the same in either theory; the personal beliefs of the observer are irrelevant.
well no, they wouldnt be the same distance. This is the FUCKING PROBLEM. Wow, maybe this is why you dont get it. The distance around a sphere from the equator to the north pole is not the same as the distance along a straight line, on a flat earth form the equator to the north pole.
or you can think of it as, the distance on RE from the equator to the north pole along the surface, is not the same as half the diameter of the earth (which is where the north pole would lie if the earth was flat, in the centre of the RE).
-
well no, they wouldnt be the same distance.
-
i smell a woops i was wrong, or an epic dodge coming on.
-
i smell a woops i was wrong, or an epic dodge coming on.
I predict the RS will be just as silent as he is about the math behind "bendy light" that he promised to deliver by mid-April. I predict TB will claim, if he shows up, that the math is just a ruse.
-
i duno who TB is. I just found out that this robosteve guy isnt all as intelligent as he makes himself out to be. Dont put others down unless you have something to back it up man.
Btw steve, you are also yet to tell me if u actually believe the world is flat. (not if you are a "true believer in FET")
-
It's strange how people are able to measure it so accurately then.
Curious I'd say.
Well, any one point on it can be easily measured as the Equator is the locus of points which lie halfway along some meridian. Measuring its length would be a more challenging task.
Yeah. Still strange how people can do it pretty easily. I wonder why that is.
-
well if you can easily measure one point, then easily measure several points, fly a plane over these points and get a rough estimate of the distance. I mean this has been done, but for some reason its not valid, apparently.
Its just stupid. If you have a shape, you measure it, it is 2d and has 3 sides, each side is the same length, then you can make a pretty confident guess its going to be an triangle, its not going to be a pyrimid. If you measure the world, the measurments match those of a sphere, then its not going to be a circle.
-
well if you can easily measure one point, then easily measure several points, fly a plane over these points and get a rough estimate of the distance. I mean this has been done, but for some reason its not valid, apparently.
Have you ever been in a plane? A measurement has to be conducted by some type of standard or reference otherwise it will not be accurate. A plane does not come even remotely close to a perfectly straight line.
-
hence i said rough estimate. Which is all you need with this kind of difference in distances.
Anyway whered roboman go?
-
ok, well due to lack of a valid number from any FE'er for the equatorial circumference, or an explanation as to where any of their measurments came from, or why the RE measurments are invalid. We can conclude that the measurments made of the earth fit with a spherical shape, and not with a flat shape, and until FET has any valid measurments which point to the earth being flat, the earth shall remain a sphere.
-
Sorry what? I really dont follow. How is the equator an arbitrary circle in FE??? It still sepereates the northern and southern hemispheres, well northern and southern "parts"
in FE i guess.
The Equator in FET is no more significant than any other line of latitude. The hubward circle and rimward annulus do not have equal areas, so the most that can be said for the Equator is that it is the locus of all points which bisect some meridian.
Also your point about their "significance" is completely insignificant (irony yes lol). Because its about which measument was made correctly in FE opinion. For some reason they decided that the RE measurment for the eqautorial circumference should be the measurment for the diameter of their earth. Or they did this by accident and they were meant to decide that the RE measurment for the circumference around the poles was measured correctly, and that our circumference was measured incorrectly. I want to know where the hell this decision came from. Why do they believe any of the measurments?? Why just one?
I don't know where that particular decision came from. You'd have to ask whoever wrote the FAQ; I don't know who did.
Well if you can measure one point between two lines of longitude then you can just extrapolate from that to get your full circumference can you not?
How is it any more challenging to make this measurment, then the one between the poles.
If you can show me a technique for extrapolating from a single data point, I would be delighted to read of it.
So tell me how far is from Oslo to Stockholm? What do you get when you calculate it by RE's Great Circle method? What do you get when you get using FE?
Here are my answers?
Actual: 417 kilometers or 225 nautical miles. Reference: http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Oslo,+Norway/to/Stockholm,+Sweden (http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Oslo,+Norway/to/Stockholm,+Sweden)
RET Great Circle:
Olso: 59 57 N 10 42 E, Reference: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html)
Stockholm: 59 17 N 18 3 E, Ibid
419km Reference: Google Earth 5.0, Ruler Tool
FET
We need to follow RS's (inane) comment that he can calculate the distance around the Equator in FE by simple geometry. Let's apply it to this problem too!
First let's calculate the distance around the FE on the 59th N.
First the radius. The 59th N is 31 of 180, so the radius of the 59th is (the diameter of the FE)/2 * 31/180 = (24900 miles)/2 * 31/180 = 2,144.16667 miles.
Second the length around the 59th is that radius * pi = 6,736 miles
Third the distance from 100 42' to 180 3' = (180 3') - (100 42'))/360 * that radius = 7.35/360 * 6,736 miles = 137.5 miles = 221 km.
Fourth we can get a great upper bound by using the taxi cab metric and adding in the FE distance north to south and using this more southern latitude. The north-south distance would be (40'/3600)(diameter of the FE)/2 = 23 miles = 37 km. So the upper bound is 258 km.
So we have a conclusive, real-world demonstration that RE's prediction of 419km is better than FE's prediction of less than 258km against the actual of 417km.
Please learn some elementary geometry. You have made two errors which have caused your FE measurement to be exactly half of what it should be.
well no, they wouldnt be the same distance. This is the FUCKING PROBLEM. Wow, maybe this is why you dont get it. The distance around a sphere from the equator to the north pole is not the same as the distance along a straight line, on a flat earth form the equator to the north pole.
or you can think of it as, the distance on RE from the equator to the north pole along the surface, is not the same as half the diameter of the earth (which is where the north pole would lie if the earth was flat, in the centre of the RE).
You are assuming, without reason to do so, that the RE Equator and the FE Equator are the same length. Why?
I predict the RS will be just as silent as he is about the math behind "bendy light" that he promised to deliver by mid-April. I predict TB will claim, if he shows up, that the math is just a ruse.
I have been busy with school recently. I will get to the specifics of the EA theory when I have time; unfortunately, I must place my other commitments first at the present time.
Btw steve, you are also yet to tell me if u actually believe the world is flat. (not if you are a "true believer in FET")
I don't know what the difference is supposed to be, but yes I do believe the Earth to be flat.
-
none of what you just said changes my previous statement. But ill reply to what you said when i have time, as im going to sleep now.
-
But ill reply to what you said when i have time, as im going to sleep now.
Yet, nearly fifteen minutes later, you are still online.
-
The Equator in FET is no more significant than any other line of latitude.
LOL@fail. Try learning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator
The equator is one of the five main circles of latitude that are based on the relationship between the Earth's axis of rotation and the plane of the Earth's orbit around the sun. It is the only line of latitude which is also a great circle. The imaginary circle obtained when the Earth's equator is projected onto the sky is called the celestial equator.
The Sun, in its seasonal movement through the sky, passes directly over the equator twice each year, on the March and September equinoxes. At the equator, the rays of the sun are perpendicular to the surface of the earth on these dates.
Places on the equator experience the quickest rates of sunrise and sunset in the world. Such places also have a theoretical constant 12 hours of day and night throughout the year (in practice there are variations of a few minutes due to the effects of atmospheric refraction and because sunrise and sunset are measured from the time the edge of the Sun's disc is on the horizon, rather than its centre). North or south of the equator day length increasingly varies with latitude and the seasons.
-
The equator is one of the five main circles of latitude that are based on the relationship between the Earth's axis of rotation and the plane of the Earth's orbit around the sun. It is the only line of latitude which is also a great circle. The imaginary circle obtained when the Earth's equator is projected onto the sky is called the celestial equator.
The Sun, in its seasonal movement through the sky, passes directly over the equator twice each year, on the March and September equinoxes. At the equator, the rays of the sun are perpendicular to the surface of the earth on these dates.
Places on the equator experience the quickest rates of sunrise and sunset in the world. Such places also have a theoretical constant 12 hours of day and night throughout the year (in practice there are variations of a few minutes due to the effects of atmospheric refraction and because sunrise and sunset are measured from the time the edge of the Sun's disc is on the horizon, rather than its centre). North or south of the equator day length increasingly varies with latitude and the seasons.
The first sentence in your quote speaks of the Earth's axis of rotation and its orbit around the Sun, neither of which is applicable to FET.
-
The first sentence in your quote speaks of the Earth's axis of rotation and its orbit around the Sun, neither of which is applicable to FET.
And yet points on the equator do recieve 12 hours (ish) of daylight followed by 12 of night. And yet the sun passes directly over the equator twice a year, and yet the equator experiences the quickest sunrise and sunset. And yet the equator is the equidistant point between the north and south pole.
All of these are simple facts about the equator which apply to both FE and RE.
Seriously try learning a little about the subject before you hit the post button. It really would make your posts more interesting.
-
...
So tell me how far is from Oslo to Stockholm? What do you get when you calculate it by RE's Great Circle method? What do you get when you get using FE?
Here are my answers?
Actual: 417 kilometers or 225 nautical miles. Reference: http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Oslo,+Norway/to/Stockholm,+Sweden (http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Oslo,+Norway/to/Stockholm,+Sweden)
RET Great Circle:
Olso: 59 57 N 10 42 E, Reference: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html)
Stockholm: 59 17 N 18 3 E, Ibid
419km Reference: Google Earth 5.0, Ruler Tool
FET
We need to follow RS's (inane) comment that he can calculate the distance around the Equator in FE by simple geometry. Let's apply it to this problem too!
First let's calculate the distance around the FE on the 59th N.
First the radius. The 59th N is 31 of 180, so the radius of the 59th is (the diameter of the FE)/2 * 31/180 = (24900 miles)/2 * 31/180 = 2,144.16667 miles.
Second the length around the 59th is that radius * pi = 6,736 miles
Third the distance from 100 42' to 180 3' = (180 3') - (100 42'))/360 * that radius = 7.35/360 * 6,736 miles = 137.5 miles = 221 km.
Fourth we can get a great upper bound by using the taxi cab metric and adding in the FE distance north to south and using this more southern latitude. The north-south distance would be (40'/3600)(diameter of the FE)/2 = 23 miles = 37 km. So the upper bound is 258 km.
So we have a conclusive, real-world demonstration that RE's prediction of 419km is better than FE's prediction of less than 258km against the actual of 417km.
Please learn some elementary geometry. You have made two errors which have caused your FE measurement to be exactly half of what it should be.
...
Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claim?
-
...
I predict the RS will be just as silent as he is about the math behind "bendy light" that he promised to deliver by mid-April. I predict TB will claim, if he shows up, that the math is just a ruse.
I have been busy with school recently. I will get to the specifics of the EA theory when I have time; unfortunately, I must place my other commitments first at the present time.
...
Why is it that you can find the time to post here on other topics while missing your commitment on "bendy light"? You provide us with clear evidence that you have the time. We can only surmise that you're just not capable of providing the specifics.
-
But ill reply to what you said when i have time, as im going to sleep now.
Yet, nearly fifteen minutes later, you are still online.
well if your really interested, i was on my gf's laptop. I posted this, closed the browser, went and brushed my teeth and checked e-mails etc on my comp for 5mins in my room, then went back 2 my gf's room, said goodbye to the person i was talking to on msn, then went to bed. Suffice as an explanation? aka i am going to sleep was faster to type. So pls, keep ur lame comments 2 urself.
Im only posting now, as i got up for an 8am surgery lab, which i realised was at 8.30 after i got up, so im killing time.
btw gogo point out his "elementary" geometry mistake
-
And yet the equator is the equidistant point between the north and south pole.
The Equator is not a point. I think you are the one that needs education.
...
So tell me how far is from Oslo to Stockholm? What do you get when you calculate it by RE's Great Circle method? What do you get when you get using FE?
Here are my answers?
Actual: 417 kilometers or 225 nautical miles. Reference: http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Oslo,+Norway/to/Stockholm,+Sweden (http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Oslo,+Norway/to/Stockholm,+Sweden)
RET Great Circle:
Olso: 59 57 N 10 42 E, Reference: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html)
Stockholm: 59 17 N 18 3 E, Ibid
419km Reference: Google Earth 5.0, Ruler Tool
FET
We need to follow RS's (inane) comment that he can calculate the distance around the Equator in FE by simple geometry. Let's apply it to this problem too!
First let's calculate the distance around the FE on the 59th N.
First the radius. The 59th N is 31 of 180, so the radius of the 59th is (the diameter of the FE)/2 * 31/180 = (24900 miles)/2 * 31/180 = 2,144.16667 miles.
Second the length around the 59th is that radius * pi = 6,736 miles
Third the distance from 100 42' to 180 3' = (180 3') - (100 42'))/360 * that radius = 7.35/360 * 6,736 miles = 137.5 miles = 221 km.
Fourth we can get a great upper bound by using the taxi cab metric and adding in the FE distance north to south and using this more southern latitude. The north-south distance would be (40'/3600)(diameter of the FE)/2 = 23 miles = 37 km. So the upper bound is 258 km.
So we have a conclusive, real-world demonstration that RE's prediction of 419km is better than FE's prediction of less than 258km against the actual of 417km.
Please learn some elementary geometry. You have made two errors which have caused your FE measurement to be exactly half of what it should be.
...
Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claim?
Erroneous parts bolded.
Why is it that you can find the time to post here on other topics while missing your commitment on "bendy light"? You provide us with clear evidence that you have the time. We can only surmise that you're just not capable of providing the specifics.
In case you haven't noticed, I haven't been posting very much lately. I have a significant quantity of assessable tasks coming up as it is nearing the end of the semester. When I have the time, I will provide you with the specifics regarding the EA theory; until then, use Euclid's empirical formula if you want to perform any calculations regarding bendy light.
-
Second the length around the 59th is that radius * pi = 6,736 miles
Erroneous parts bolded.
Give him a break, he's only off by over 6000 miles.
-
The equator is a point on any latitude.
Wow.
-
Hopefully now you can see that the equator is "significant"?
-
Hopefully now you can see that the equator is "significant"?
All I see is that you are clueless when it comes to geography.
-
Hopefully now you can see that the equator is "significant"?
All I see is that you are clueless when it comes to geography.
Says the boy that posted this:
The Equator in FET is no more significant than any other line of latitude.
Fucking epic.
-
i think hes pointing out you meant to say longitude. They are easy 2 confuse :P
-
i think hes pointing out you meant to say longitude. They are easy 2 confuse :P
I know. That's about all he's capable of doing. I really hope there's a job out there for him which requires these kinds of troll skills.
-
Says the boy that posted this:
The Equator in FET is no more significant than any other line of latitude.
Fucking epic.
You have yet to show otherwise.
-
Says the boy that posted this:
The Equator in FET is no more significant than any other line of latitude.
Fucking epic.
You have yet to show otherwise.
That's what makes you the extra special retard that you are. I already have.
Now read. Lurk moar. Maybe molest a family member and tell them its a secret game.
-
That's what makes you the extra special retard that you are. I already have.
No you haven't. You've only stated truths regarding the Celestial Equator.
-
please give us the FE equator distance.
-
MEASURE THE EARTH. UNTIL YOU DO, THE MEASURMENTS ARE THAT OF A SPHERE.
-
MEASURE THE EARTH. UNTIL YOU DO, THE MEASURMENTS ARE THAT OF A SPHERE.
Cruise control is only really useful when you're on the highway.
-
Always best to measure girth at the middle, where it's thickest.
-
MEASURE THE EARTH. UNTIL YOU DO, THE MEASURMENTS ARE THAT OF A SPHERE.
Cruise control is only really useful when you're on the highway.
Surely these (i think) fictional FE scientists have enough money, resources and determination to make two measurments of the earth and see if they are consistent with a circle.
-
surely its the most logical way to determine the shape of something too big for us to just observe. Just measure it, and see what shape the measurments are consistent with. The measurments are consistent with a sphere. Unless the FE'ers make some measurments that say otherwise, then the world will remain a sphere until that day.
-
win i guess. the earth is a sphere, good day.
-
WIN
-
... win