What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?

  • 40 Replies
  • 39232 Views
*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2013, 01:58:51 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

Well this is all pretty telling isn't it?  Assertions with no evidence are not much use.
Do you have proof that Bigfoot does not exist?  That would be a hard thing to prove, even if it is true.

We have been over this song and dance.  You cannot prove a negative statement.
Then why are you asking me to prove that no one has ever measured the distance from the equator to the north pole?  ???

That is not what I ahve asked you to do at any point.  I asked you to back up your claim that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is only calculated.  Please prove the positive statement.  I do not care about the implied negative.

If it has been measured, and not just calculated, then once again, please provide evidence.  I can not provide evidence that something has not happened.

I did not make a claim either way.  You did.  I am asking you to prove that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is "only a calculation".
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #31 on: May 02, 2013, 02:00:55 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

Well this is all pretty telling isn't it?  Assertions with no evidence are not much use.
Do you have proof that Bigfoot does not exist?  That would be a hard thing to prove, even if it is true.

We have been over this song and dance.  You cannot prove a negative statement.
Then why are you asking me to prove that no one has ever measured the distance from the equator to the north pole?  ???

That is not what I ahve asked you to do at any point.  I asked you to back up your claim that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is only calculated.  Please prove the positive statement.  I do not care about the implied negative.

If it has been measured, and not just calculated, then once again, please provide evidence.  I can not provide evidence that something has not happened.

I did not make a claim either way.  You did.  I am asking you to prove that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is "only a calculation".
Once again, it would be impossible for me to prove that it has not been measured.  I have just never seen proof that it has.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #32 on: May 02, 2013, 02:04:44 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

Well this is all pretty telling isn't it?  Assertions with no evidence are not much use.
Do you have proof that Bigfoot does not exist?  That would be a hard thing to prove, even if it is true.

We have been over this song and dance.  You cannot prove a negative statement.
Then why are you asking me to prove that no one has ever measured the distance from the equator to the north pole?  ???

That is not what I ahve asked you to do at any point.  I asked you to back up your claim that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is only calculated.  Please prove the positive statement.  I do not care about the implied negative.

If it has been measured, and not just calculated, then once again, please provide evidence.  I can not provide evidence that something has not happened.

I did not make a claim either way.  You did.  I am asking you to prove that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is "only a calculation".
Once again, it would be impossible for me to prove that it has not been measured.  I have just never seen proof that it has.

Ok.  Its generally bad form in a debate to make claims you cannot prove.  Thanks for clarifying.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #33 on: May 02, 2013, 02:15:23 PM »
I doubt anyone has actually sailed a ship from the equator to the north pole in a perfectly straight line using precise measuring equipment the whole way to confirm the hypothetical calculation for a round Earth.
Not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying that the distance from the north pole to the equator is unknown?

I am saying that it is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance.

You are just asserting that right?  It sounds like you do not have proof that it has not been measured.
How can I prove that Bigfoot does not exist?  Once again, you want me to prove that something has not happened.  Why don't you just prove that it has, since that would be easy if it had happened.

Jroa, you made a positive statement that the distance is from the North Pole to the Equator is a calculated distance.  That is not the same as asserting the existence of an unprovable being.  This should be factually provable.  Is it?
Yes I did.  However, I did say, "IF you drew a circle on a flat Earth map", and then I followed it up with a mathematical calculation to figure what the characteristics of that circle would be.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless of what calculations you made in this thread you said this:

"I am saying that (the distance from the North Pole to the Equator) is a calculated distance, based on the assumption that the Earth is round, not a measured distance."

You are saying clearly that calculation is the only we know this distance from the North Pole to the Equator, do you have evidence of this?
I do not.  I also do not have proof that Bigfoot is not real.

Well this is all pretty telling isn't it?  Assertions with no evidence are not much use.
Do you have proof that Bigfoot does not exist?  That would be a hard thing to prove, even if it is true.

We have been over this song and dance.  You cannot prove a negative statement.
Then why are you asking me to prove that no one has ever measured the distance from the equator to the north pole?  ???

That is not what I ahve asked you to do at any point.  I asked you to back up your claim that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is only calculated.  Please prove the positive statement.  I do not care about the implied negative.

If it has been measured, and not just calculated, then once again, please provide evidence.  I can not provide evidence that something has not happened.

I did not make a claim either way.  You did.  I am asking you to prove that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is "only a calculation".
Once again, it would be impossible for me to prove that it has not been measured.  I have just never seen proof that it has.

Ok.  Its generally bad form in a debate to make claims you cannot prove.  Thanks for clarifying.

No, I can say that something has not happened if I have not seen proof of the opposite.  This is perfectly fine in a proper debate.  If you want to prove me wrong, then go ahead, but I can make that statement until you do.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #34 on: May 02, 2013, 02:21:13 PM »
Could we get back on topic folks? Thanks.

Thinking on another comment I made (in another thread), there is a way of confirming (at least approximately) circumferences at different latitudes. One need only measure a distance between two longitudes, whilst on the same latitude, and then do a little math. For example:

At roughly 33 degrees South latitude, 35 degrees of longitude is about 3,300km, so 360 degrees of longitude (a full circle, or circumference) would be about 34,000km.

Methods for measuring latitude and longitude can be found in various places online, including the Flat Earth Wiki. Anyone with an understanding of maths and geometry will understand how this works. Anyone without that understanding should go back to school.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39603
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #35 on: May 02, 2013, 04:45:37 PM »
No, I can say that something has not happened if I have not seen proof of the opposite.  This is perfectly fine in a proper debate. 
What makes you an authority on things that haven't happened?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #36 on: May 02, 2013, 05:02:00 PM »
No, I can say that something has not happened if I have not seen proof of the opposite.  This is perfectly fine in a proper debate. 
What makes you an authority on things that haven't happened?

I know a lot of things that have not happened. 

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39603
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #37 on: May 02, 2013, 05:45:10 PM »
No, I can say that something has not happened if I have not seen proof of the opposite.  This is perfectly fine in a proper debate. 
What makes you an authority on things that haven't happened?
I know a lot of things that have not happened.
How do you know for certain that they haven't happened?  Maybe they did happen but no one let you know.  Is everyone obligated to let you know when things do or don't happen?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #38 on: May 02, 2013, 06:09:05 PM »
No, I can say that something has not happened if I have not seen proof of the opposite.  This is perfectly fine in a proper debate. 
What makes you an authority on things that haven't happened?
I know a lot of things that have not happened.
How do you know for certain that they haven't happened?  Maybe they did happen but no one let you know.  Is everyone obligated to let you know when things do or don't happen?
If it had already happened, then it wouldn't have not happened, now would it?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39603
Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2013, 07:42:59 PM »
No, I can say that something has not happened if I have not seen proof of the opposite.  This is perfectly fine in a proper debate. 
What makes you an authority on things that haven't happened?
I know a lot of things that have not happened.
How do you know for certain that they haven't happened?  Maybe they did happen but no one let you know.  Is everyone obligated to let you know when things do or don't happen?
If it had already happened, then it wouldn't have not happened, now would it?
Not necessarily.  It could be that it didn't happen until it did happen.  Or, it could be that it did happen and nobody bothered to let you know so you only think that it didn't happen.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2013, 06:53:50 PM »
Back on topic,

Could we get back on topic folks? Thanks.

Thinking on another comment I made (in another thread), there is a way of confirming (at least approximately) circumferences at different latitudes. One need only measure a distance between two longitudes, whilst on the same latitude, and then do a little math. For example:

At roughly 33 degrees South latitude, 35 degrees of longitude is about 3,300km, so 360 degrees of longitude (a full circle, or circumference) would be about 34,000km.

Methods for measuring latitude and longitude can be found in various places online, including the Flat Earth Wiki. Anyone with an understanding of maths and geometry will understand how this works. Anyone without that understanding should go back to school.