Earths circumference (at the equator)

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 78225 miles
Diameter:       24,900 miles

anyone?

and they ignore the fact that it has been measured? pretty precicely...

So what is the distance around the equator in FE theory?

Quote from: Colossal Death Robot on May 10, 2009, 11:54:57 PM

So what is the distance around the equator in FE theory?

62,945 km

Do you have any evidence of your outlandish claim?

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)

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:

Quote

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.

a circle is different to a sphere

and then they proceeded to use the wrong measurment anyway

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Colossal Death Robot on May 12, 2009, 03:17:09 AM

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.

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.

i smell a woops i was wrong, or an epic dodge coming on.

Quote from: dr.spock on May 12, 2009, 04:58:16 AM

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.