North vs. South

  • 47 Replies
  • 7005 Views
?

Bushido

North vs. South
« on: May 13, 2007, 11:10:46 AM »
No, this is not something about the American Civil War!

It’s just that in the orthodox FE model, where the Equator is a concentric circle halfway between the North Pole and the Ice Wall, the Southern hemisphere (that’s not a FE term) has three times the area of the Northern hemisphere:


*

Pyrochimp

  • 577
  • Senator Awesome
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2007, 11:28:36 AM »
Yeah, it does.  All the continents are stretched out to compensate I guess.  Those pilots are just crazy.
Some people are ****ing stupid! ~ George Carlin

Mathematical proof of the flat Earth:
[{(Diameter of Earth)*(tan[distance from Earth to sun/distance from North pole to equator])}2]/0

*

sokarul

  • 18883
  • Extra Racist
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2007, 11:34:17 AM »
I would think someone would notice that the southern hemishpere is so much bigger. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2007, 01:08:36 PM »
Apparently not.  No one who's done the flying has noticed a dramatic underestimation of flight time.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2007, 01:19:32 PM »
Conveniently, EVERY flight in the southern hemisphere is done through slipstreams.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

Bushido

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2007, 03:49:05 PM »
I'm not talking about length, I'm talking about area. The distance from the Equator to the North Pole is the same as to the Ice Wall along any meridian.

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2007, 03:51:06 PM »
Travaling a southern route on FE and RE would be completely different distance.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2007, 03:52:25 PM »
I still like the South-pole centric version of FE best


?

Bushido

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2007, 03:53:07 PM »
Post that in a different thread. The red annular ring has three times the blue circle on the figure I have posted.

*

Pyrochimp

  • 577
  • Senator Awesome
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2007, 03:53:59 PM »
I'm not talking about length, I'm talking about area. The distance from the Equator to the North Pole is the same as to the Ice Wall along any meridian.

We're not talking about North/South travel, we're talking about West/East travel, which would be more distorted in comparison to the RE model as you went farther South.
Some people are ****ing stupid! ~ George Carlin

Mathematical proof of the flat Earth:
[{(Diameter of Earth)*(tan[distance from Earth to sun/distance from North pole to equator])}2]/0

?

Bushido

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2007, 03:55:12 PM »
I'm not talking about travel, I'm just saying there is three times more area south of the Equator than there is North from it.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2007, 03:55:36 PM »
Post that in a different thread. The red annular ring has three times the blue circle on the figure I have posted.

it started life in another post, i just thought they'd be helpful to debate in this topic   :-\

*

Pyrochimp

  • 577
  • Senator Awesome
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2007, 03:55:52 PM »
I concur.
Some people are ****ing stupid! ~ George Carlin

Mathematical proof of the flat Earth:
[{(Diameter of Earth)*(tan[distance from Earth to sun/distance from North pole to equator])}2]/0

?

Bushido

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2007, 03:56:13 PM »
Post that in a different thread. The red annular ring has three times the blue circle on the figure I have posted.

it started life in another post, i just thought they'd be helpful to debate in this topic   :-\

That was intended for Mr.Ireland.  :D

?

Bushido

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2007, 03:57:30 PM »
I concur.

So, is this also true in reality or just on paper, so to speak?

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2007, 04:00:39 PM »
Post that in a different thread. The red annular ring has three times the blue circle on the figure I have posted.

it started life in another post, i just thought they'd be helpful to debate in this topic   :-\

That was intended for Mr.Ireland.  :D

Ah, my bad :)

?

Bushido

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2007, 04:00:53 PM »
This problem can be modified in a different way. The area North of the Equator and the area South of it is in a ratio 1 : 3 between any two meridians (since the meridians are radii on the FE and cut a circular sector on the circle).

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2007, 04:07:01 PM »
Since maps are drawn under the presumption of a Round Earth, and since globes are inherently inaccurate due to form; we must conduct a query based purely on observational data - quotes from mariners who have personally sailed and charted the southern seas.

Specimen A:

In the "Cruise of the H.M.S Challenger," by W.J.J. Spry, the distance made from the Cape of Good Hope to Melbourne is stated to be 7,637 miles. The Cape is in latitude 34o 21' south and Melbourne in latitude 37o south, the longitude of the Cape being 18o 30' east and Melbourne 145o east. The middle latitude is 35.5o. Difference of longitude 126.5o, which makes the distance round the world at that latitude (35.5o) to be over 25,000 statute miles and as great as the equator is said to be. Thus we see on reliable evidence that the further we go south the greater the distance round the world. This latter distance is many thousand miles more than the purely theoretical measurement of the world at that latitude south. From the same work we find the distance from Sydney to Wellington to be 1,432 miles. The middle latitude is 37.5o, and the difference of longitude 23o 36', which gives as the distance round the world at latitude 37.5o south, 25,500 statute miles! This distance is again greater than the greatest distance round the 'globe' is said to be and many thousands of miles greater than could be the case on a globe. Thus, on purely practical data, apart from any theory, the world is proved to diverge as the south is approached and not to converge, as it would do on a globe.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 04:22:38 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2007, 04:12:13 PM »
Tom. STOP copy-pasting. Your calculations were shown incorrect in another thread.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2007, 04:19:51 PM »
Quote
Tom. STOP copy-pasting. Your calculations were shown incorrect in another thread.

There's nothing incorrect about those calculations. The calculations are absolutely correct. The  remarks in that previous thread stem from an inability of the reader to calculate the circumference of the earth based on a difference of longitude. It's simple math, really. The earth - flat or round - will have a circumference of 360o at every latitude. If we know what the quoted distance is between the Cape of Good Hope and Melbourne we can compute that difference of 126o longitude between the two locations into 360o and come up with a figure for the circumference.

Simple as that.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 04:25:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Pyrochimp

  • 577
  • Senator Awesome
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2007, 04:24:36 PM »
This isn't really related (and I'm not going to say those calculations are wrong because I haven't tried them) but why do you edit everything?  Why not just read over it before you hit post?  It makes you look...untrustworthy.
Some people are ****ing stupid! ~ George Carlin

Mathematical proof of the flat Earth:
[{(Diameter of Earth)*(tan[distance from Earth to sun/distance from North pole to equator])}2]/0

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2007, 04:25:17 PM »
(7637/126)*360 = 21,820 miles

Simple as that.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

sokarul

  • 18883
  • Extra Racist
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2007, 04:27:28 PM »
Quote
Tom. STOP copy-pasting. Your calculations were shown incorrect in another thread.

There's nothing incorrect about those calculations. The calculations are absolutely correct. Those  remarks in that previous thread stem from an inability of the reader to calculate the circumference of the earth based on a difference of longitude. It's simple math, really. The earth - flat or round - will have a circumference of 360o at every latitude. If we know what the distance is between the Cape of Good Hope and Melbourne we can compute that difference of 126o longitude between the two locations into 360o and come up with a figure for the circumference.

Simple as that.
But the distance between each degree is not the same.  At the equator there would be more mileage per degree then anywere else.  Seriously the math is obviously wrong.  Otherwise someone would notice.  Using a system made for a globe would not give you a reading thats thousands of miles off.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2007, 04:29:24 PM »
(7637/126)*360 = 21,820 miles

Simple as that.

Wow Gin, that's a terrible calculation there. You forgot that this isn't a straight line we're talking about, but a curve.  A curve is always longer than a straight line. You'll need to compute arcs of a circle if you wish to correctly find the figure. In your equation you will need to include pi - the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 04:39:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2007, 04:34:52 PM »
Erm, it's not terrible. The distance between those two locations is, incidentally, 6441 miles.

Now about that calculation, we are going to have to assume an equal latitude (as your post seems to), so we are talking about a section through a spher(oid) parallel to the equator (which is a circle). That circle can be divided into 360 equal parts or 'degrees', of which the distance in question takes up 126. All these degrees are (at equal latitude) equal in length, and total 7637 miles. To find the size of the entire circle, we divide the distance by the number of degrees 7637/126 to find the length of 1 degree, and multiply by 360 to find the circumference. This gives 21,820 miles. What calculations do you use? I mean what actual calculations?

Maths is easy if you know how.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

Bushido

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2007, 04:39:53 PM »
...
Specimen A:

In the "Cruise of the H.M.S Challenger," by W.J.J. Spry, the distance made from the Cape of Good Hope to Melbourne is stated to be 7,637 miles. The Cape is in latitude 34o 21' south and Melbourne in latitude 37o south, the longitude of the Cape being 18o 30' east and Melbourne 145o east.
...

The shortest distance on a Round Earth is along a great circle. The length of the path is proportional to the central angle γ, which is calculated from the following formula:


where the λ's are the latitudes and the φ's are the longitudes of the corresponding points on the Globe. Using the data for Cape of Good Hope and Melbourne, we get:

cos γ = -0.05269 => γ = 93.017°

The distance between Cape of Good Hope and Melbourne can not be smaller than R*π*γ/180, where R is the radius of the Globe, so we get an upper bound of:

     180*7,637 mi/(3.1416*93.017) = 4,704 mi

for the Earth's radius, which is greater by about 19%. You're example is a beautiful way to measure Earth's radius.

?

Bushido

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2007, 04:54:42 PM »
This problem can be modified in a different way. The area North of the Equator and the area South of it is in a ratio 1 : 3 between any two meridians (since the meridians are radii on the FE and cut a circular sector on the circle).

Let's get back to the topic of the thread.

To generalize even further, the areas between sectors bounded by meridians with equal difference in longitude are with the same area.

One should find a sector on the southern hemisphere that is almost completely covered with land and compare its area with the areas of a similar sector in the northern hemisphere that is also mostly covered by land. If this ratio is very different from 3, than something is either wrong with  the FE model or with the reported areas of the countries in that sector.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #27 on: May 13, 2007, 04:57:37 PM »
As usual Tom has abandoned the thread upon being owned. While he's gone away googling, I'm gonna try out that sector thing.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

Bushido

Re: North vs. South
« Reply #28 on: May 13, 2007, 05:01:22 PM »
Try South America between 60° W and 70° W longitude and Africa and Europe between 15° E and 25° E. List all of the countries there and their areas, total it and present it. If some country is cut by the meridian, take its total area because it won't pose a great problem.

EDIT: Take Brasil as half, even though it's not half of this area in this sector.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 05:03:55 PM by Bigus Dickus »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: North vs. South
« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2007, 05:13:32 PM »
This is taking flippin ages, bear with me a moment. Tom, anything to add?

Edit: Ahhh it's too difficult for this time in the morning!

Tom was still proved wrong though.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 05:28:06 PM by Gin »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.