Assuming RET is correct, could you give me an estimate of how negligible the curvature near the poles really is?
Sure, I'll work on acquiring that for you.
One moment.
EDIT: It appears I over-exaggerated. The curve is not negligible near the poles, but slightly decreased. Still, the fact that it is not a prefect sphere. I will concede the point that my original statement was more or less incorrect as a result.
However, I would like to move on to a related point, if that is alright.
Also, when looking at this site, I found a calculation for RE curvature:
http://regentsprep.org/Regents/earthsci/units/introduction/planetarysize.cfmI realize that those calculations rely on light not being "bendy" but again, I am simply demonstrating tenets of the Round Earth theory.
The specifics of the curvature are a roughly 7 degree difference over about 780 km.
The majority of the experiments in EnaG were done over a distance of 6 miles, which is roughly 10 km (actually slightly less)
This means that the curvature the experiments done in EnaG should have observed a negligible curve (7/78 degrees, if my math is right) which is indeed what they observed.
Now I cannot work out how exactly the author of EnaG worked out that RE would have such a dramatic curve, as in the version I am reading, he seems to simply apply arbitrary numbers for distances to estimate the curve without explaining why.
A link to the version page:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htmHowever, I still wish to put forth this critique: while the EnaG experiments did disprove an Earth with the specifications the author describes, they do not disprove the Earth described by RET.