Mistake in the FAQ?

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

Circumference: 80,150 km (49,802 miles) Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

Before I begin, where do these numbers come from? I could not figure that out, so a source would be wonderful. Now the actual reason I started this topic is because these numbers don't make any sense. If the Earth does have a set diameter and circumference, that means it is not infinite, so it is a disk. Great. If we're only considering the top of the Earth, it is a circle, so you can calculate the circumference or diameter from the equation C = (pi) (d) where C is circumference, pi is 3.14, and d is the diameter. The problem is that the numbers given do not make any sense. If I plugged them in, this is what happens:

              C = (pi) (d)
80,150 km = (3.14) (40,073 km)
80,150 km = 125,829.22 km

Now the problem is obvious, because the two sides do not match up. So now we have a few possibilities here

The first possibility is that the diameter is correct, and the circumference is wrong. If this is true, then the circumference should be 125,829.22 km

The second possibility is that the circumference is correct, and the diameter is wrong. If this is true, then the diameter should be 25,525.48 km

The third possibility is that both numbers are correct, but the earth is actually an ellipse. Now This means that the diameter must be one of the axis', so I worked it out, and I literally could not find a value for the short axis in order to validate this. Even if the short axis is infinitely small, the circumference has to be greater than 80,000 km (somewhere around 89,000 km) so an ellipse could not work at all.


So what's going on here? Is the circumference listed wrong, or is it the diameter? And is it really smart to trust a source that (a) has not been given, and (b) that has made such a simple mistake? Or did I just mess up somewhere along the way?

as nobody has been to the edge then an exact number can not be given

Well yes, but even approximations are usually better than what has been provided. This is just tragically wrong

We are aware of this inconsistency.

We are aware of this inconsistency.

You were aware and you didn't do anything?

Well first of all, thank you Zhark. Who knows what else might still be an "inconsistency?"

Secondly, I still never got a source for those numbers, Tom. I'd rather not trust in those numbers until I do, and honestly, the FAQ's should already have sources embedded.

Well first of all, thank you Zhark. Who knows what else might still be an "inconsistency?"

Secondly, I still never got a source for those numbers, Tom. I'd rather not trust in those numbers until I do, and honestly, the FAQ's should already have sources embedded.

Their sources are themselves or a lousy book from the XIXth century.

Their sources are themselves or a lousy book from the XIXth century.

If you are referring to "Earth Not A Globe," then let me show you one of my favorite quotes from the website http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2012, 01:05:21 PM

We are aware of this inconsistency.

You were aware and you didn't do anything?

Do you see "Moderator" listed under my name?

Tom, do you know if this is being adressed? Can we expect the correction to be implemented soon?

Quote from: EmperorZhark on July 15, 2012, 01:52:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2012, 01:05:21 PM

We are aware of this inconsistency.

You were aware and you didn't do anything?

Do you see "Moderator" listed under my name?

Am I the only one that doesn't? Anyways, when you said "We are aware of this inconsistency" it sounded like you were part of the group of people who was aware and is dealing with the issue

Quote from: EmperorZhark on July 15, 2012, 01:52:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2012, 01:05:21 PM

We are aware of this inconsistency.

You were aware and you didn't do anything?

Do you see "Moderator" listed under my name?

one time you did, or so im lead to believe. you can still persuade people to make changes here tom you maybe the local crazy man but you do have a great presence in the fes

Am I the only one that doesn't? Anyways, when you said "We are aware of this inconsistency" it sounded like you were part of the group of people who was aware and is dealing with the issue

My sentence implies that I am part of the group of people who is aware of the issue. It does not imply that we are dealing with it.

My sentence implies that I am part of the group of people who is aware of the issue. It does not imply that we are dealing with it.

You misinterpreted what I meant. I wasn't trying to tell you what your sentence meant, but what one could have interpreted from it. Anyways, considering that you are very well-known here, would you be able to bring more attention to this matter?

The matter has been addressed. At the top of the FAQ it says:

The FAQ is continually updated and adjusted by members of the Flat Earth Society. Please click here to see the source document at the Flat Earth Wiki for the most up to date version. There are links to the relevant sections of the Flat Earth Wiki throughout this thread.

The value has been fixed there in the Wiki FAQ. One day the Wiki FAQ will replace the FAQ and the issue will be resolved.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on July 15, 2012, 01:52:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 15, 2012, 01:05:21 PM

We are aware of this inconsistency.

You were aware and you didn't do anything?

Do you see "Moderator" listed under my name?

Tom, didn't you say "We"? Did you not take it upon yourself to represent the FLS?

Why would I say "we" and mean "the moderators" when I am not a moderator? Look under my name to see who I am representing.

Why would I say "we" and mean "the moderators" when I am not a moderator? Look under my name to see who I am representing.

Tom Bishop is actually "Team Bishop", a pseudoname for a gaggle of Mexican prostitutes working in shift rotation on their nights off. That is who he represents.  That stuff about Monterey is BS.  It's actually Tijuana where you'll find Team Bishop.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2012, 07:19:39 AM

Why would I say "we" and mean "the moderators" when I am not a moderator? Look under my name to see who I am representing.

Tom Bishop is actually "Team Bishop", a pseudoname for a gaggle of Mexican prostitutes working in shift rotation on their nights off. That is who he represents.  That stuff about Monterey is BS.  It's actually Tijuana where you'll find Team Bishop.

Please refrain from low-content posting and personal attacks. 

Markjo, perhaps you can fix the "inconsistency". After all, you're a moderator. Whoever put that up there isn't very good at grade-school math.

Thankfully there is a moderator here now, so maybe the FAQ can be changed, but it's nice that at least the wiki has gotten it right. What I still haven't found, however, is where the value for the diameter came from. Maybe the wiki can adopt the numbered superscripts that Wikipedia has, so that I could at least learn why someone decided it made sense that the Earth had a diameter of 40,073 km

while your at it change the flock of seagull setting sun perspective theory.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2012, 07:19:39 AM

Why would I say "we" and mean "the moderators" when I am not a moderator? Look under my name to see who I am representing.

Tom Bishop is actually "Team Bishop", a pseudoname for a gaggle of Mexican prostitutes working in shift rotation on their nights off. That is who he represents.  That stuff about Monterey is BS.  It's actually Tijuana where you'll find Team Bishop.

Hey Tim is a great guy, don't pointlessly attack his character.

Who's Tim?

while your at it change the flock of seagull setting sun perspective theory.

What is this?

I performed 2 experiments, one with the sunrise, one with the moonrise.
Held a coin at arm lenths to obscure the object completely.
While to my eyes, it "appeared " the object got smaller as it rose (largest at the horzion) in fact
the coin always just barely obsured the clestial object from its rise for over one hour.
at noon I repeated, and the coin just barley obscured the object still.
No Change in size,

The FAQ will tell you, just as a flock of seagulls appear to get smaller as they fly away from you, so does the setting sun, until you cant see it at all, but in reality even though our eyes mistakenly think it is getting larger as it sets, it really stays the same.

the FAQ gets it wrong,

but unfortunatley since the FAQ is like the Crhistian bible to faqqergs, it will never be changed.

It does not explain how the sun appears to go "down though". Bendy light is not sufficient. In fact, it doesn't even make sense.

Well we wouldn't want to get rid of mistakes in the FAQ; it's nice to have something there for people to read.

Who's Tim?

Tim Bishop.

Quote from: The Ice Wall Ninja on July 20, 2012, 07:34:29 AM

Who's Tim?

Tim Bishop.

Orbis, you're a hero and all, but his name is Tom. Just thought you should know.