Easy way to prove the earth is indeed flat

One possible way to get RET'ers off our backs is to go measure the circumference of "Antarctica". According to a flat earth map, the rock we live on looks like a circle with the north pole at the center and the "south pole" just beyond an ice wall around the circumference of the map. Accordingly, the inner circumference of the ice wall (what RET'ers call the outside of Antarctica) can be measured with the following:
s = r(theta), where s is the circumference, r is the flat earth radius, and theta is 2*pi. This is also known as C=2(pi)r.
Because the observable radius of the flat earth (from north pole to ice wall) is 20,037 km (trust me, I used a tape measure), this puts the inner circumference of the ice wall at 125,896 km.

No chicanery or subterfuge there; this is simple 2-D geometry.

If someone were to sail around "Antarctica", the resulting circumferential measurement would have to be 125,896 km. Clear as day.

This would directly contradict RET, which claims a measly 15,000 km circumference of the "continent" "Antarctica."

Once we successfully measure the perimeter of "Antarctica," we'll be as sure that the earth is flat as we are that an infinite number of tortoises support the earth.

One possible way to get RET'ers off our backs is to go measure the circumference of "Antarctica".

Pretty bold statement for a first post.

One possible way to get RET'ers off our backs is to go measure the circumference of "Antarctica".

I eagerly await the results of your experiment.

well, it isnt really a perfect flat circle, it is on a sphere, so, the circumfrence will actually be lower than a flat circle

Antarctica is freaking large. So it's not easy to prove beyond the shadow of an FE'ers doubt that the continent is not a rim. Boats take months to circumnavigate the content, as they have to stop several times for a number of days, with the "conspiracy" making GPS invalid, one must rely on predicted distances, time, and reasonable velocities. Because the number of stops are not completely known, one could say that the entire FE distance is circumnavigated in 100 days, like it is in the Antarctica Cup

You assume conventional geometries. That is, in fact, assuming that the Earth is a globe. It isn't one.

@vhu9644:
I am comparing the two geometries, not equating them. They are mutually exclusive.

@PizzaPlanet:
Which particular facet of the argument do you disagree with? I used Euclidean geometry, i.e., 2-D geometry, as specified in the OP. (A circle is 2-D)

@Thevoiceofreason:
You should google expeditions that sail the coastline of Antarctica (cruises have done this), see how long they take, find the distance of the coastline by multiplying the ship's speed (a racing yacht's cruising speed can be up to 100 km/h) by the time the expedition takes, and then compare that distance to the two circumferences listed above. Let me know what you get

Hint: the Earth is round.
Perhaps we could settle for flat-ish?

You should google expeditions that sail the coastline of Antarctica

I could not find one cruise that goes all the way around Antarctica.

Why don't you do this for us?

a racing yacht's cruising speed can be up to 100 km/h

Relevance? Cruise ships only go around 35 km/h on an expedition.

@PizzaPlanet:
Which particular facet of the argument do you disagree with? I used Euclidean geometry, i.e., 2-D geometry, as specified in the OP. (A circle is 2-D)

PizzaPlanet is a proponent of the bendy space theory wherein space bends so flat geometry can apparently work like a sphere, to make the measured low circumference of Antarctica seem possible. That is, PizzaPlanet refuses to acknowledge that Euclidean principles can be applied in the real world. And before you ask, no it doesn't make sense at all, and before you continue even further; yes, PizzaPlanet is a troll.

Otherwise, I'll be excited to see the outcries of "conspiracy!" and ignorance when you prove the earth is round for the umpteenth time in here

So the earth is flat, yet round, eh PizzaPlanet? Let's just call it round.

@EnglshGentleman:

Sorry about the yacht reference, I should have been more clear. Both cruise ships and yachts circle around Antarctica, and I was generously supplying the maximum speed possible (that of a racing yacht) in order to quell any doubt.

And why should I ruin the fun for you? I would be remiss in my duties as an RET'er if I didn't let you figure this out on your own

After all, you can lead an ass to water, but you can't make him drink.

@silver
This confuses me. One axiom of FET is that the earth looks flat, therefore it must be flat (plus or minus some careful word dancing). But now we are to think that the earth looks round, therefore it must be flat?

Nevermind, you're right. I suppose I shouldn't mind the trolls.

This argument is moot anyway. Everyone knows the earth is actually a torus.

There was no cruises that travel all the way around Antarctica to be found.

I think we can chalk this up to another victory for flat earth!

@EnglshGentleman

Classic argument. Cruise lines and the shape of the earth are inexplicably related.

Question: are you a troll? I am interested in seeing how many people believe in FET on this site.

If you are incapable of finding cruises that go around Antarctica, you may want to research yacht expeditions instead. There have been plenty.

He's one of the more polite trolls. Really the only ones I'm not quite sure are trolls are Tom Bishop, Ichimaru Gin, John Davis and Lord Wilmore

Edit: I should rephrase that: the only ones I see regularly that I'm not quite sure about.

@silver

I see. So those are the individuals who potentially profit from the product sales occurring through this organization.

@EnglshGentleman

Classic argument. Cruise lines and the shape of the earth are inexplicably related.

Classic argument. Tell people that there is irrefutable evidence and make them find it, not telling them that it doesn't actually exist.

There is irrefutable evidence that there are 500 foot tall creatures roaming the Earth. Really, there is! Go Google it! If you don't find it, you just aren't looking hard enough! When you still can't find it,  you must be trolling!

Question: are you a troll?

I am not. I would not take anything silver says seriously. He has been here for what, a month? That is hardly a person that has any clue what the beliefs of the people here are.

@silver

I see. So those are the individuals who potentially profit from the product sales occurring through this organization.

There are no profits from products sales through this organization.

This is a not-for-profit site, so items are sold approximately at cost.  Any incidental profits will be used to pay for the site's bandwidth and offset the occasional photocopying costs of materials added to the Flat Earth Library.  The remainder of any income generated by the site will go to The Flat Earth Foundation, the charitable wing of The Flat Earth Society, which will donate the remaining funds to selected animal welfare charities.  This is in line with the long-standing tradition of animal welfare and anti-vivisectionist ideals within the Flat Earth movement from prominent Flat Earth advocates such as Lady Blount and Marjory Johnson.   Last Christmas, the Flat Earth Society forums raised about $120 for animal shelters in Chicago and Baltimore.

in Master Lord Willmires model Antactica is a seperate continent and can easily be sailed around.
The Wall of ice is much further beyond.
And another higher wall (accroding to James ) much further beyond

By the way,

Am I correct in interpreting your interpretations of the earth as being a cylinder, or at least a semi-cylindrical object? After all, I think we can all agree that the earth is not two-dimensional, so it's full geometry isn't summed up by the simple word "flat."

@vhu9644:
I am comparing the two geometries, not equating them. They are mutually exclusive.

@PizzaPlanet:
Which particular facet of the argument do you disagree with? I used Euclidean geometry, i.e., 2-D geometry, as specified in the OP. (A circle is 2-D)

@Thevoiceofreason:
You should google expeditions that sail the coastline of Antarctica (cruises have done this), see how long they take, find the distance of the coastline by multiplying the ship's speed (a racing yacht's cruising speed can be up to 100 km/h) by the time the expedition takes, and then compare that distance to the two circumferences listed above. Let me know what you get

Hint: the Earth is round.
Perhaps we could settle for flat-ish?

As I said before, its by no means a constant journey. And I'm not going to read through pages and pages of logs and journals to calculate when they were traveling and how far, just for FE'ers to pick out some stupid reason why its invalid. The point is either method of travel won't tell you beyond the shadow of an FE'ers doubt what the distance is.

Contrary to what silver claims, I am not a proponent of a "bendy space" theory. That's what Thevoiceofreason thinks I believe, and what some noobs assumed as the absolute truth. I am also not a troll, and my model is perfectly consistent with all RE "requirements". Silver also thinks the Earth has been proven to be round, but unfortunately cannot point out a single argument/experiment that gives such conclusive proof when asked. I suggest you disregard silver's wild claims, as they are simple slander with no shred of support. Unfortunately, some noobs are angry noobs.

However, there is one thing silver was right about: the part of your argument I disagree with is the use of Euclidean geometry. That essentially is assuming that the Earth is round.

Apparently you didn't read the OP. The portion of my argument that used Euclidean geometry assumed a flat earth, represented by a planar surface (flat object with circlular cross-section).

Quote from: Earth is a Torus on February 24, 2011, 07:10:22 AM

@vhu9644:
I am comparing the two geometries, not equating them. They are mutually exclusive.

@PizzaPlanet:
Which particular facet of the argument do you disagree with? I used Euclidean geometry, i.e., 2-D geometry, as specified in the OP. (A circle is 2-D)

@Thevoiceofreason:
You should google expeditions that sail the coastline of Antarctica (cruises have done this), see how long they take, find the distance of the coastline by multiplying the ship's speed (a racing yacht's cruising speed can be up to 100 km/h) by the time the expedition takes, and then compare that distance to the two circumferences listed above. Let me know what you get

Hint: the Earth is round.
Perhaps we could settle for flat-ish?

As I said before, its by no means a constant journey. And I'm not going to read through pages and pages of logs and journals to calculate when they were traveling and how far, just for FE'ers to pick out some stupid reason why its invalid. The point is either method of travel won't tell you beyond the shadow of an FE'ers doubt what the distance is.

For the record, in 2009, the Antarctica Cup was sailed by 32 contestants from all over the world, the basic course of which is a circumnavigation of the Antarctic continent. All 32 vessels were tracked in real time and their position, speed and bearing broadcast on the Antarctica Cup website antarcticacup.com.

For those interested, you can read the complete log of Fedor Konyukhov, the winning competitor (solo, single-hulled) at http://www.covarimail.com/linkfile.lasso?1=116621&2=/userfiles/36_188/File/Konyukhov%20log%20070508.doc

He set a record for solo sailing around the southern hemisphere, achieving it in just over 102 days. As a point of comparison, if the trip really did take him 125,000km around the icewall, to make it in that time he would have had to average around 25 knots (about 50kph), putting him just shy of the world speed record for a solo, monohulled yacht (in any waters, on any day, in any weather).

^ The earth is not flat. Any questions?

For the record, in 2009, the Antarctica Cup was sailed by 32 contestants from all over the world, the basic course of which is a circumnavigation of the Antarctic continent. All 32 vessels were tracked in real time and their position, speed and bearing broadcast on the Antarctica Cup website antarcticacup.com.

For those interested, you can read the complete log of Fedor Konyukhov, the winning competitor (solo, single-hulled) at http://www.covarimail.com/linkfile.lasso?1=116621&2=/userfiles/36_188/File/Konyukhov%20log%20070508.doc

He set a record for solo sailing around the southern hemisphere, achieving it in just over 102 days. As a point of comparison, if the trip really did take him 125,000km around the icewall, to make it in that time he would have had to average around 25 knots (about 50kph), putting him just shy of the world speed record for a solo, monohulled yacht (in any waters, on any day, in any weather).

While this is great information, you made one mistake. In your calculate, you calculated as if they were sailing around the rim on the Earth, which they weren't. If they were sailing around Antarctica, they would have been sailing further in. The map in the FAQ depicts the Ice wall to have a depth averaging about the thickness of Australia, maybe a little bit bigger. Austrialia is 3180 km from North to South, so lets say the ice wall is 3500 km thick on average. So circle they would be sailing around would be about 104,000 km. This would average them around 42 kph, or 22.6 knots.

in the op, you assumed that when you measured antartica, it was a flat circle (i think that was what you meant)
if you want to estimate the circumference, you need to use a centerpoint inside the round earth for the round earth calculation, and one on the north pole for flat earth calculations, due to a difference in their respective center's location

in the round earth model, if you were to just calculate the center of antartica to the edge, you would get a longer distance than the actual radius used to estimate antartica's circumference becuase you have traveled across a curved path , and is longer than if you chose a center that gives the least distance possible towards all sides

This thread is what we know as begging the question.

@vhu9644:

Please stop. I was showing a calculation for a flat earth, which has a flat Antarctica. I did not measure the circumference of any rounded Antarctica.

@PizzaPlanet:

I beg to differ.

@vhu9644:

Please stop. I was showing a calculation for a flat earth, which has a flat Antarctica. I did not measure the circumference of any rounded Antarctica.

Oh really?

This would directly contradict RET, which claims a measly 15,000 km circumference of the "continent" "Antarctica."

Contrary to what silver claims, I am not a proponent of a "bendy space" theory. That's what Thevoiceofreason thinks I believe, and what some noobs assumed as the absolute truth. I am also not a troll, and my model is perfectly consistent with all RE "requirements". Silver also thinks the Earth has been proven to be round, but unfortunately cannot point out a single argument/experiment that gives such conclusive proof when asked. I suggest you disregard silver's wild claims, as they are simple slander with no shred of support. Unfortunately, some noobs are angry noobs.

However, there is one thing silver was right about: the part of your argument I disagree with is the use of Euclidean geometry. That essentially is assuming that the Earth is round.

bendyspace=noneuclidean space. Euclidean space is not bent, any non bent space is Euclidean. So a geometry that is non euclidean is ??.

You need to read [Kenneth Falconer, "Fractal geometry" (2nd), Wiley, 2003]
before you start claiming fractal geometry.

@dimbrit,

That is a measured quantity. I did not calculate it.

Before you speak of things I do not care about, know that I do not wish to discuss this value. It is irrelevant. The point is to show that the traveled distance around Antarctica is less than that of the circumference of the ice wall. Once again, the RET circumference of Antarctica is irrelevant.