Day length in the southern hemisphere suggests the flat Earth map is wrong

  • 49 Replies
  • 21038 Views
I didn't know till yesterday that the flat Earth map cannot be correct if we observe longer days the closer we get to Antarctica.

Not sure how I missed this important controversy. I guess I haven't been so much interested in it and never actually tried to understand what it represents.

Anyway, the fact that in places like Ushuaia or anywhere else close to Antarctica the days are much longer in the summer than closer to the Equator suggests that the flat Earth map is wrong.

I am not sure what map should be used for flat Earth, but if the Earth is flat and Antarctica is the ice ring around it, we can't possibly have longer days closer to Antarctica.

Basically, we should come up with another map which represents the flat Earth idea adequately as the current one is obviously wrong. There is no need to argue about any other details if something as trivial as the day length hasn't been explained by the map.







You can check the day length for one of the southernmost inhabited cities - Ushuaia, Argentina. Its geographical coordinates are 54░ 48' 0" South, 68░ 18' 0" West. During their summer in December the days last more than 17 hours!

http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/ushuaia?month=12&year=2015



Same thing for the southernmost city in New Zealand. In Invercargill, NZ the days last close to 16 hours in December. Its geographical coordinates are 46░ 24' 0" South, 168░ 21' 0" East.

http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/new-zealand/invercargill?month=12&year=2015



How can this be if Antarctica is the ice ring surrounding the flat disc and the Sun travels in a circle above the Tropic of Capricorn during the southern hemisphere summer?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2015, 04:22:43 AM by Saros »

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
The only model you'll get to work is 3 dimensional and globe-shaped.

JRowe's utterly insane dual-earth double sun idea actually looks like your best chance right now.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

The only model you'll get to work is 3 dimensional and globe-shaped.

JRowe's utterly insane dual-earth double sun idea actually looks like your best chance right now.



I am interested in other FE'ers opinions on the controversy I just presented.

I mean, how can you believe in the map if it is obviously wrong? There is no doubt about it.

I am not talking about the shape of the continents, but about stuff which can be easily measured, the day length in the southern hemisphere.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
The flat-earth isn't the definitive world map. It's just an idea to help people grasp the concept of a flat-earth. We haven't mapped the world yet.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
The flat-earth isn't the definitive world map. It's just an idea to help people grasp the concept of a flat-earth. We haven't mapped the world yet.



Flat earth with the sun in the Northern & Southern hemispheres that provide 12 hours of sunlight during the respective summer.
Notice how the southern hemisphere sun area needs to increase dramatically to make up for the larger distance traveled.
Notice how the north pole is NEVER in darkness under this model, ever.

No matter how you map the world, the way the sun lights the FE does not work

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
You don't think it's presumptuous to claim you know how the world looks before it's mapped?

I didn't know till yesterday that the flat Earth map
There is no flat earth map.  The one you are referencing is an Azimuthal equidistant projection of a globe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

The flat-earth isn't the definitive world map. It's just an idea to help people grasp the concept of a flat-earth. We haven't mapped the world yet.



Flat earth with the sun in the Northern & Southern hemispheres that provide 12 hours of sunlight during the respective summer.
Notice how the southern hemisphere sun area needs to increase dramatically to make up for the larger distance traveled.
Notice how the north pole is NEVER in darkness under this model, ever.

No matter how you map the world, the way the sun lights the FE does not work

That is actually a huge problem within the flat Earth theory which needs careful revision.

If no solution to the problem is presented it is logical to assume the model is wrong.

I don't want it to be, but how do we account for the way the sun lights the Earth? Do we have many suns? Is the Earth infinite? Please say something.

We can't simply avoid talking about this as if it is not a problem, and deny that the days get longer south of the equator in the summer the farther you get from it.

At least come up with a different flat Earth model, so that people can still consider the idea viable. As far as I understand, Antarctica can't be the ice ring due to the above mentioned controversy.

It is possible perhaps that the Earth is still a flat disc with Antarctica being a huge island at the bottom, I have no clue. This needs to be discussed thoroughly.

Something like this map below? Well, it can't be because then you cannot travel straight from the Americas to Asia or Australia through the Pacific ocean.



There are other possibilities, I guess. Why accept the least credible one and the one which is obviously proven wrong?

Could it be that the ice ring is not Antarctica?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2015, 06:17:56 AM by Saros »

I didn't know till yesterday that the flat Earth map
There is no flat earth map.  The one you are referencing is an Azimuthal equidistant projection of a globe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection

Please read the whole comment. The flat Earth society doesn't really have a map, however, it is said that Antarctica is the ice ring, which is impossible since the days get longer south of the equator the closer you get to Antarctica. No map can account for that ever unless Antarctica is not the ice ring.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
this is one of the reasons i now prefer dual earth theory. along with circumpolar stars and flight times, it seems unlikely that one hemisphere is significantly larger than the other. having antarctica at the rim is the most likely of all the alternatives for the classical flat earth map, due to how few planes fly near there, but due to the effect it would have on half the world, that clearly isn't possible.
from the sun's behavior, we can conclude the two hemispheres must be of similar dimension. if the world is inhabited on the top and the bottom, then this allows for what we observe:



the sun (or rather suns, both mirrors of one another) rotates around the exterior of the earth, the rim being instead at the equator. the paths are fairly simple, though details are complex. they keep circling, moving higher or lower depending on the season, never both visible as they exist at opposite sides.
dual earth theory seems, to me, to answer a number of questions: including that of the sun.

i go into more detail on the general overview, if you are interested, here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
You don't think it's presumptuous to claim you know how the world looks before it's mapped?

I am not questioning how the map looks like, I am questioning the model.
No matter where you place the countries relative to the suns Summer/Winter orientation, you are going to have a problem.

Your problem is this


not just the exact positioning of the countries

this is one of the reasons i now prefer dual earth theory. along with circumpolar stars and flight times, it seems unlikely that one hemisphere is significantly larger than the other. having antarctica at the rim is the most likely of all the alternatives for the classical flat earth map, due to how few planes fly near there, but due to the effect it would have on half the world, that clearly isn't possible.
from the sun's behavior, we can conclude the two hemispheres must be of similar dimension. if the world is inhabited on the top and the bottom, then this allows for what we observe:



the sun (or rather suns, both mirrors of one another) rotates around the exterior of the earth, the rim being instead at the equator. the paths are fairly simple, though details are complex. they keep circling, moving higher or lower depending on the season, never both visible as they exist at opposite sides.
dual earth theory seems, to me, to answer a number of questions: including that of the sun.

i go into more detail on the general overview, if you are interested, here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258

Yeah, but I don't get it how you move from one hemisphere to the other in your model. If the other hemisphere is the bottom one that should be somehow felt, no? You go to the edge of the top hemisphere and then you crawl backwards to the bottom? I am confused. Wouldn't it have a clear edge in your model?

You don't think it's presumptuous to claim you know how the world looks before it's mapped?

I am not questioning how the map looks like, I am questioning the model.
No matter where you place the countries relative to the suns Summer/Winter orientation, you are going to have a problem.

Your problem is this


not just the exact positioning of the countries

Unfortunately, I would have to agree with you. That is exactly what I meant. Even if the Sun is a spotlight it couldn't possibly shine over the periphery of the Earth simultaneously without shining over the rest of it.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2015, 06:27:00 AM by Saros »

?

Weatherwax

  • 761
  • Grand Lover of Satan and Science
The flat-earth isn't the definitive world map. It's just an idea to help people grasp the concept of a flat-earth. We haven't mapped the world yet.

It's the model that's being questioned, not the map. If you don't have a working model, there is no flat-earth theory.
A delusion is something that someone believes in despite a total lack of evidence - Prof. Richard Dawkins.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
this is one of the reasons i now prefer dual earth theory. along with circumpolar stars and flight times, it seems unlikely that one hemisphere is significantly larger than the other. having antarctica at the rim is the most likely of all the alternatives for the classical flat earth map, due to how few planes fly near there, but due to the effect it would have on half the world, that clearly isn't possible.
from the sun's behavior, we can conclude the two hemispheres must be of similar dimension. if the world is inhabited on the top and the bottom, then this allows for what we observe:



the sun (or rather suns, both mirrors of one another) rotates around the exterior of the earth, the rim being instead at the equator. the paths are fairly simple, though details are complex. they keep circling, moving higher or lower depending on the season, never both visible as they exist at opposite sides.
dual earth theory seems, to me, to answer a number of questions: including that of the sun.

i go into more detail on the general overview, if you are interested, here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.msg1669258#msg1669258

Yeah, but I don't get it how you move from one hemisphere to the other in your model. If the other hemisphere is the bottom one that should be somehow felt, no? You go to the edge of the top hemisphere and then you crawl backwards to the bottom? I am confused. Wouldn't it have a clear edge in your model?

it comes down to aetheric transmission. we would feel it, if not for the speed of aether: it's instantaneous. there's nothing there to experience. further, light is transmitted also, which lets you see, for example, the bottom, when you stand on the edge of the top.
the obvious questions are answered in the post i linked to.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
1. Would you be content with an "Inverse-Toroid" version of the flat earth concept?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map_edit.jpg

If you were to take a doughnut and press it into wet cement and then remove the doughnut, the rounded impression it left in the cement would be what is known in mathematics as an inverse toroid.

"How strange it appears, that one of the most ingenious mathematicians the world ever produced, assumed for certain purposes that the earth was a globe, that it revolved, that its revolutions caused the fluid and plastic matter of its substance to determine towards the equator--causing it to "bulge out" to a greater extent than the diameter in the direction of the axis, and therefore the circumference .at the equator must be greater than the circumference at right angles, or in the direction of latitude; or, in other words, that the degrees of latitude must diminish towards the poles, and yet "men of the greatest skill," with "instruments of the most perfect construction," having availed themselves of "all that science can do," have succeeded in making measurements the most exact "ever made on the face of the earth," have found results the very reverse of all that the Newtonian theory deemed essential to its consistency and perfection! Instead of the degrees diminishing towards the pole they were found to increase; as if the earth were egg-shaped or prolonged through its axis, and not, like an orange, flattened at the sides--"as if;" to use more scientific language, "the earth were an oblong instead of an oblate spheroid."

Read more : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za40.htm

2. If i took away from you any of these presumptions...

1. alleged tilt of the earth
2. alleged rotation of the earth
3. alleged revolution of the earth

...would you still be able to explain DAY AND NIGHT on the supposedly ROUND earth?

Find me one scientist in the world who is able to do that!

You can begin with Alpha2Omega...

Now, since you can't do that, the only way how you can save your face (and faces of all scientists in the world) is to give us the name of at least ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT (that has EVER been done) which results unequivocally have proven that any of the above hypothesis could be anything else but hypothesis.

Since you can't do that, then you and all scientists in the whole world have nothing. Nothing at all!!!


A). http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660101#msg1660101
B). http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003

3. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224

4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1666724#msg1666724

5. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1670579#msg1670579
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11639
The only model you'll get to work is 3 dimensional and globe-shaped.

JRowe's utterly insane dual-earth double sun idea actually looks like your best chance right now.



I am interested in other FE'ers opinions on the controversy I just presented.

I mean, how can you believe in the map if it is obviously wrong? There is no doubt about it.

I am not talking about the shape of the continents, but about stuff which can be easily measured, the day length in the southern hemisphere.
Have you personally verified the daylight hours in the southern areas, or are you taking someones word for it. It is possible that the information is incorrect.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
Have you personally verified the daylight hours in the southern areas, or are you taking someones word for it. It is possible that the information is incorrect.

I can personally confirm that the sun rose at about 6am this morning over the warm Indian ocean at Durban South Africa, and at 16:03h  today it is still daylight.

The only model you'll get to work is 3 dimensional and globe-shaped.

JRowe's utterly insane dual-earth double sun idea actually looks like your best chance right now.



I am interested in other FE'ers opinions on the controversy I just presented.

I mean, how can you believe in the map if it is obviously wrong? There is no doubt about it.

I am not talking about the shape of the continents, but about stuff which can be easily measured, the day length in the southern hemisphere.
Have you personally verified the daylight hours in the southern areas, or are you taking someones word for it. It is possible that the information is incorrect.

If you believe that Ushuaia's whole population of 90,000(or 127,000 in Tierra del Fuego) are government agents, then I guess it is possible to be incorrect.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40126
The flat-earth isn't the definitive world map. It's just an idea to help people grasp the concept of a flat-earth. We haven't mapped the world yet.
If you haven't mapped the world yet, then how do you know that the "map" properly conveys the concept of a flat earth?
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.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
The flat-earth isn't the definitive world map. It's just an idea to help people grasp the concept of a flat-earth. We haven't mapped the world yet.
If you haven't mapped the world yet, then how do you know that the "map" properly conveys the concept of a flat earth?

In this way :

A) The superficial extent or magnitude of the earth from the northern centre to the southern circumference, can only be stated approximately. For this purpose the following evidence will suffice. In laying the Atlantic Cable from the Great Eastern steamship, in 1866, the distance from Valencia, on the south-western coast of Ireland, to Trinity Bay in Newfoundland, was found to be 1665 miles. The. longitude of Valencia is 10░ 30┤ W.; and of Trinity Bay 53░ 30┤ W. The difference of longitude between the two places being 43░, and the whole distance round the earth being divided into 360░. Hence if 43░ are found to be 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles, 360░ will be 13,939 nautical, or 16,262 statute miles; then taking the proportion of radius to circumference, we have 2200 nautical, or 2556 statute miles as the actual distance from Valencia, in Ireland, to the polar centre of the earth's surface.

Another and a very beautiful and accurate way of ascertaining the earth's circumference is the following:--

The difference of longitude between Heart's Content Station, Newfoundland, and that at Valencia or, in other words, between the extreme points of the Atlantic) Cable--has been ascertained by Mr. Gould, coast surveyor to the United States Government, to be 2 hours, 51 minutes, 56.5 seconds." 1

The sun passes over the earth and returns to the same point in 24 hours. If in 2 hours, 51 minutes, and 56.5 seconds, it passes from the meridian of the Valencia end of the cable to that of its termination at Heart's Content, a distance of 1942 statute miles, how far will it travel in 24 hours? On making the calculation the answer is, 16,265 statute miles. This result is only three miles greater distance than that obtained by the first process.

Again in the Boston Post, for Oct. 30th, 1856, Lieut. Maury gives the following as the correct distances, in geographical miles, across the Atlantic by the various routes (circle sailing).

If we take the distance (given in the above table) between Liverpool and New York as 3360 statute miles, and calculate as in the last case, we find a nearly similar result, making allowance for the detour round the south or north of Ireland.

"The difference of time between London and New York which the use of the electric cable makes a matter of some consequence, has latterly been ascertained afresh. It is 4 hours, 55 minutes, 18.95 seconds." 1

The results of these several methods are so nearly alike that the distance 16,262 statute miles may safely be taken as the approximate circumference of the earth at the latitude of Valencia.

Let's see what google maps say about the distances between these places:

Tokio (35 degrees N) - Los Angeles (34 degrees N) = 5471 Mi (8804 km)
Los Angeles - New York (40 degrees N) = 2448 Mi (3940 km)
New York - Istanbul (41 degrees N) = 5009 Mi (8062 km)
Istanbul - Tokio = 5556 Mi (8942 km)

All together (full circumference of the Earth at latitude 34-41 N) = 18484 Mi (29748 km)

B) If the distance from Valencia to the Cape of Good Hope, or to Cape Horn, had ever been actually measured, not calculated, the circumference of the earth at these points could, of course, be readily ascertained. We cannot admit as evidence the calculated length of a degree of latitude, because this is an amount connected with the theory of the earth's rotundity; which has been proved to be false. We must therefore take known distances between places far south of Valencia, where latitude and longitude have also been carefully observed. In the Australian Almanack for 1871, page 126 2, the distance from Auckland (New Zealand), to Sydney, is given as 1315 miles, nautical measure, which is equal to 1534 statute miles. At page 118 of the Australian Almanack for 1859, Captain Stokes, H.M.S. Acheron, communicates the latitude of Auckland as 36░ 50┤ 05″, S., and longitude 174░ 50┤ 40″, E.; latitude of Sydney, 33░ 51┤ 45″, S., and longitude 151░ 16┤ 15″, E. The difference in longitude, or time distance, is 23░ 34┤ 25″, calculating as in the case of Valencia to Newfoundland, we find that as 23░ 34┤ 25″ represents 1534 statute miles, 360░ will give 23,400 statute miles as the circumference of the earth at the latitude of Sydney, Auckland, and the Cape of Good Hope. Hence the radius or distance from the centre of the north to the above places is, in round numbers, 3720 statute miles. Calculating in the same way, we find that from Sydney to the Cape of Good Hope is fully 8600 statute miles.

The above calculations receive marked corroboration from the practical experience of mariners. The author has many times been told by captains of vessels navigating the southern region, that from Cape Town to Port Jackson in Australia, the distance is not less than 9000 miles; and from Port Jackson to Cape Horn, 9500 miles
; but as many are not willing to give credit to such statements, the following quotation will be useful, and will constitute sufficient evidence of the truth of the foregoing calculations:--

"The Great Britain steamer has arrived, having made one of the best voyages homeward that has yet been effected, viz., 86 days; 72 only of which were employed in steaming; and the remaining 14 days being accounted for by detentions. She left Melbourne on January 6th, and arrived in Simon's Bay on February 10th, or 35 days. She then went round to Cape Town, whence she sailed on the 20th of February; and was afterwards detained for four days at St. Michael's and Vigo. The distance she steamed per log was 14,688 miles; which for the 72 days, gives an average of 204 miles a day."

If we multiply the average rate of sailing by the thirty-five days occupied in running between Melbourne and St. Simon's Bay (near Cape of Good Hope), we find that the distance is 7140 nautical miles, From Melbourne to Sydney is 6 degrees of longitude further east, or about S40 nautical miles. Hence 7140 added to 340 give 7480 nautical miles, equal to 8726 statute miles; which is 126 miles in excess of the distance given at page 94.

The following extract furnishes additional evidence upon this important point:--

"EXTRAORDINARY VOYAGE.--Every yachtsman (says the Dublin Express), will share in the pride with which, a correspondent relates a brilliant, and, we believe, unexampled exploit which has just been performed by a small yacht of only 25 tons, which is not a stranger to the waters of Dublin Bay. The gallant little craft set out from Liverpool for the antipodes, and arrived safely in Sydney after a splendid run, performing the entire distance, 16,000 miles, in 130 days. Such an achievement affords grounds for reasonable exultation, not more as a proof of the nautical skill of our amateurs, than of their adventurous spirit, which quite casts in the shade the most daring feats of Alpine climbers."


A s the distance from Melbourne to Cape of Good Hope is 7140 nautical miles, as shown by the log of the Great Britain, and as the whole distance from Melbourne to Liverpool was 14,688 nautical miles, it follows that, deducting 7140 from 14,688, that the passage from the Cape of Good Hope to Liverpool was 7548 nautical miles. If we take this distance from the 16,000 miles, which the above mentioned yacht sailed to Sydney, we have as the distance between Cape of Good Hope and Sydney, 8452 nautical, or 9860 statute miles.

In a letter from Adelaide which appeared in the Leeds Mercury for April 20th, 1867, speaking of certain commercial difficulties which had existed there, the following incidental passage occurs:--

"Just as our harvest was being concluded, the first news arrived of anticipated dearth of breadstuffs at home. The times. were so hopelessly dull, money was so scarce, and the operation of shipping wheat a distance of 14,000 miles so dangerous, that for a long time the news had no practical effect."

From England to Adelaide is here stated as 14,000 nautical, or 16,333 statute miles; and as the difference of longitude between Adelaide and Sydney is 23 degrees, equal to 1534 statute miles, we find that from England to Sydney the distance is 17,867 statute miles. Taking from this the 7548 nautical, or 8806 statute miles, we have again 9061 statute miles as the distance between the Cape of Good Hope and Sydney.

From the preceding facts it is evident that the circumference of the earth, at the distance of the Cape of Good Hope from the polar centre, is not less in round numbers than 23,400 miles.
Should it ever be shown by actual direct measurement to be more than this distance, then the distance from Cape Town to Sydney must be more than 8600 statute miles.

Let's see what google maps say about the distances between these places :

Sydney -- Cape Town = 2445 Mi (3935 km) TOO, TOO, TOO, TOO FAR OFF FROM REALITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sydney -- Terra del Fuego (Argentina) = 5924 Mi (9534 km) -- STILL VERY FAR OFF FROM REALITY

Cape Town - Terra del Fuego = 4216 Mi (6785 km) -- Much, much closer to reality!!!!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40126
The flat-earth isn't the definitive world map. It's just an idea to help people grasp the concept of a flat-earth. We haven't mapped the world yet.
If you haven't mapped the world yet, then how do you know that the "map" properly conveys the concept of a flat earth?

In this way :

A) The superficial extent or magnitude of the earth from the northern centre to the southern circumference, can only be stated approximately. For this purpose the following evidence will suffice. In laying the Atlantic Cable from the Great Eastern steamship, in 1866, the distance from Valencia, on the south-western coast of Ireland, to Trinity Bay in Newfoundland, was found to be 1665 miles. The. longitude of Valencia is 10░ 30┤ W.; and of Trinity Bay 53░ 30┤ W. The difference of longitude between the two places being 43░, and the whole distance round the earth being divided into 360░. Hence if 43░ are found to be 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles, 360░ will be 13,939 nautical, or 16,262 statute miles; then taking the proportion of radius to circumference, we have 2200 nautical, or 2556 statute miles as the actual distance from Valencia, in Ireland, to the polar centre of the earth's surface.
What is the difference in latitude between Trinity Bay and Valencia?  You do understand that lines of longitude are not the same distance apart at different latitudes, don't you?  What route was taken from Valencia to Trinity Bay?  Was it a great circle route, did it follow a line of latitude or was it a straight line as on a polar projection map?  You do realize that the route taken can greatly affect the distance, don't you?  Just because they used 1665 miles of cable, that doesn't necessarily mean that the two locations are 1665 miles apart.
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.

The flat-earth isn't the definitive world map. It's just an idea to help people grasp the concept of a flat-earth. We haven't mapped the world yet.
If you haven't mapped the world yet, then how do you know that the "map" properly conveys the concept of a flat earth?

In this way :

A) The superficial extent or magnitude of the earth from the northern centre to the southern circumference, can only be stated approximately. For this purpose the following evidence will suffice. In laying the Atlantic Cable from the Great Eastern steamship, in 1866, the distance from Valencia, on the south-western coast of Ireland, to Trinity Bay in Newfoundland, was found to be 1665 miles. The. longitude of Valencia is 10░ 30┤ W.; and of Trinity Bay 53░ 30┤ W. The difference of longitude between the two places being 43░, and the whole distance round the earth being divided into 360░. Hence if 43░ are found to be 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles, 360░ will be 13,939 nautical, or 16,262 statute miles; then taking the proportion of radius to circumference, we have 2200 nautical, or 2556 statute miles as the actual distance from Valencia, in Ireland, to the polar centre of the earth's surface.

This is taking place at about 50░ North latitude. Because lines of longitude converge toward the poles, they are less than 65% as far apart as they are at the equator. He found the approximate circumference of a small circle of latitude (not the great-circle circumference of the Earth) somewhere between the end points of the cable, then used that circumference to determine the radial distance to the Earth's axis (not the pole) at that longitude. So?

Quote
Another and a very beautiful and accurate way of ascertaining the earth's circumference is the following:--

<repeat of same using a different method>

The results of these several methods are so nearly alike that the distance 16,262 statute miles may safely be taken as the approximate circumference of the earth at the latitude of Valencia.
Again, so what? That's the circumference of a parallel of latitude, not a great circle, so it's not particularly meaningful for what the author is trying to get at.

Quote
Let's see what google maps say about the distances between these places:

Tokio (35 degrees N) - Los Angeles (34 degrees N) = 5471 Mi (8804 km)
Los Angeles - New York (40 degrees N) = 2448 Mi (3940 km)
New York - Istanbul (41 degrees N) = 5009 Mi (8062 km)
Istanbul - Tokio = 5556 Mi (8942 km)

All together (full circumference of the Earth at latitude 34-41 N) = 18484 Mi (29748 km)
That's poor terminology. The "full circumference of the Earth" is a great circle, not the circumference of a small circle representing a parallel of latitude.

Are you intentionally trying to deceive, or were you just deceived yourself by Rowbotham's meaningless blather above and simply parroting his bad information?

Quote
B) If the distance from Valencia to the Cape of Good Hope, or to Cape Horn, had ever been actually measured, not calculated, the circumference of the earth at these points could, of course, be readily ascertained. We cannot admit as evidence the calculated length of a degree of latitude, because this is an amount connected with the theory of the earth's rotundity; which has been proved to be false. [Citation needed] We must therefore take known distances between places far south of Valencia, where latitude and longitude have also been carefully observed. In the Australian Almanack for 1871, page 126 2, the distance from Auckland (New Zealand), to Sydney, is given as 1315 miles, nautical measure, which is equal to 1534 statute miles. At page 118 of the Australian Almanack for 1859, Captain Stokes, H.M.S. Acheron, communicates the latitude of Auckland as 36░ 50┤ 05″, S., and longitude 174░ 50┤ 40″, E.; latitude of Sydney, 33░ 51┤ 45″, S., and longitude 151░ 16┤ 15″, E. The difference in longitude, or time distance, is 23░ 34┤ 25″, calculating as in the case of Valencia to Newfoundland, we find that as 23░ 34┤ 25″ represents 1534 statute miles, 360░ will give 23,400 statute miles as the circumference of the earth parallel of latitude at the latitude of Sydney, Auckland, and the Cape of Good Hope. Hence the radius or distance from the centre of the north axis of the Earth to the above places is, in round numbers, 3720 statute miles. Calculating in the same way, we find that from Sydney to the Cape of Good Hope is fully 8600 statute miles.


Again, so what? This is why great circle routes are preferred when feasible. It's only 6832 miles; the constant-latitude small-circle route is about 1770 miles (26%) longer!

Quote
The above calculations receive marked corroboration from the practical experience of mariners. The author has many times been told by captains of vessels navigating the southern region, that from Cape Town to Port Jackson in Australia, the distance is not less than 9000 miles; and from Port Jackson to Cape Horn, 9500 miles[/b][/u]; but as many are not willing to give credit to such statements, the following quotation will be useful, and will constitute sufficient evidence of the truth of the foregoing calculations:--
Final bold added. In other words these reports are unreliable.

Quote
"The Great Britain steamer has arrived, having made one of the best voyages homeward that has yet been effected, viz., 86 days; 72 only of which were employed in steaming; and the remaining 14 days being accounted for by detentions. She left Melbourne on January 6th, and arrived in Simon's Bay on February 10th, or 35 days. She then went round to Cape Town, whence she sailed on the 20th of February; and was afterwards detained for four days at St. Michael's and Vigo. The distance she steamed per log was 14,688 miles; which for the 72 days, gives an average of 204 miles a day."

If we multiply the average rate of sailing by the thirty-five days occupied in running between Melbourne and St. Simon's Bay (near Cape of Good Hope), we find that the distance is 7140 nautical miles, From Melbourne to Sydney is 6 degrees of longitude further east, or about S40 340(?). Hence 7140 added to 340 give 7480 nautical miles, equal to 8726 statute miles; which is 126 miles in excess of the distance given at page 94.

At Sydney's latitude, 1░ of longitude is just under 50 nautical miles; at Melbourne, it's about 47.5, so what does this 340 nmi above represent?

This is a very sketchy way to determine the distance. Why is it treated as any more reliable than the discounted distances above?

Quote
The following extract furnishes additional evidence upon this important point:--

"EXTRAORDINARY VOYAGE.--Every yachtsman (says the Dublin Express), will share in the pride with which, a correspondent relates a brilliant, and, we believe, unexampled exploit which has just been performed by a small yacht of only 25 tons, which is not a stranger to the waters of Dublin Bay. The gallant little craft set out from Liverpool for the antipodes, and arrived safely in Sydney after a splendid run, performing the entire distance, 16,000 miles, in 130 days. Such an achievement affords grounds for reasonable exultation, not more as a proof of the nautical skill of our amateurs, than of their adventurous spirit, which quite casts in the shade the most daring feats of Alpine climbers."


A s the distance from Melbourne to Cape of Good Hope is 7140 nautical miles, as shown by the log of the Great Britain, and as the whole distance from Melbourne to Liverpool was 14,688 nautical miles, it follows that, deducting 7140 from 14,688, that the passage from the Cape of Good Hope to Liverpool was 7548 nautical miles. If we take this distance from the 16,000 miles, which the above mentioned yacht sailed to Sydney, we have as the distance between Cape of Good Hope and Sydney, 8452 nautical, or 9860 statute miles.

In a letter from Adelaide which appeared in the Leeds Mercury for April 20th, 1867, speaking of certain commercial difficulties which had existed there, the following incidental passage occurs:--

"Just as our harvest was being concluded, the first news arrived of anticipated dearth of breadstuffs at home. The times. were so hopelessly dull, money was so scarce, and the operation of shipping wheat a distance of 14,000 miles so dangerous, that for a long time the news had no practical effect."

From England to Adelaide is here stated as 14,000 nautical, or 16,333 statute miles; and as the difference of longitude between Adelaide and Sydney is 23 degrees [Citation needed!][nb]Sydney is at 151.2░ E; Adelaide is at 138.6░ E. They differ by 12.6░ in longitude.[/nb], equal to 1534 statute miles nope, we find that from England to Sydney the distance is 17,867 statute miles. Taking from this the 7548 nautical, or 8806 statute miles, we have again 9061 statute miles as the distance between the Cape of Good Hope and Sydney.
 

And another wrong answer. Where did that 23 degrees come from? He uses it to calculate the distance in statute miles you would get if you (incorrectly) use 60 nmi/degree and convert to statute miles (distance in statute miles = approximately 115% distance in nmi), so it wasn't just a mistake in typesetting - he actually uses that number.

This book is shot through with errors like this, and worse. Don't use it!!!

Quote

From the preceding facts it is evident that the circumference of the earth, at the distance of the Cape of Good Hope from the polar centre, is not less in round numbers than 23,400 miles.
Should it ever be shown by actual direct measurement to be more than this distance, then the distance from Cape Town to Sydney must be more than 8600 statute miles.

Between all the assumptions and lack of a navigable great-circle course (part of Australia is in the way, for one thing, and the GC route goes very far south into very hostile seas), so what? The above is arm waving and obfuscation.

Quote

Let's see what google maps say about the distances between these places :

Sydney -- Cape Town = 2445 Mi (3935 km) TOO, TOO, TOO, TOO FAR OFF FROM REALITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm... I get 6855 miles with Google Earth by great circle, which sounds about right. You might want to re-check that 2445-mi distance between Cape Town and Sydney.

Quote
Sydney -- Terra del Fuego (Argentina) = 5924 Mi (9534 km) -- STILL VERY FAR OFF FROM REALITY

Cape Town - Terra del Fuego = 4216 Mi (6785 km) -- Much, much closer to reality!!!!

Both of those look about right.

None of this means a damn thing. Is there a point to this long post?

You really need a more reliable source of information than Rowbotham.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
After that TLDR posts, nothing is concerning day lengths have been remotely answered in a FE model.
If you can show HOW it is possible using geometry please do.

After that TLDR posts, nothing is concerning day lengths have been remotely answered in a FE model.
If you can show HOW it is possible using geometry please do.

I am afraid no one is interested in addressing the day length discrepancy.

I don't see the point to continue arguing till someone provided a meaningful explanation of why it is still believed Antarctica is the ice ring when it can't be due to the day length controversy.

Not only that but pretty much everywhere on the Net the UN logo FE map is considered  to be the closest to what the flat Earth should look like.

One of the comments even suggested that the day length information for southern latitudes is wrong :o

Weatherwax decided that this is not interesting and started a thread about the distances as if one controversy is not enough.

I don't care about the distances when you can clearly see that it is impossible to have longer days in southern latitudes and have Antarctica as the ice ring at the same time.

Perhaps there are 10 suns or something. That would even be more acceptable than the current model.

On the other hand, JRoweSkeptic introduced a magic flat Earth map where you basically teleport unawaringly and you never feel you're upside down when you make the transition from one side to the other?!? By the way, his model doesn't address the day lengths either.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
After that TLDR posts, nothing is concerning day lengths have been remotely answered in a FE model.
If you can show HOW it is possible using geometry please do.

I am afraid no one is interested in addressing the day length discrepancy.

I don't see the point to continue arguing till someone provided a meaningful explanation of why it is still believed Antarctica is the ice ring when it can't be due to the day length controversy.

Not only that but pretty much everywhere on the Net the UN logo FE map is considered  to be the closest to what the flat Earth should look like.

One of the comments even suggested that the day length information for southern latitudes is wrong :o

Weatherwax decided that this is not interesting and started a thread about the distances as if one controversy is not enough.

I don't care about the distances when you can clearly see that it is impossible to have longer days in southern latitudes and have Antarctica as the ice ring at the same time.

Perhaps there are 10 suns or something. That would even be more acceptable than the current model.

On the other hand, JRoweSkeptic introduced a magic flat Earth map where you basically teleport unawaringly and you never feel you're upside down when you make the transition from one side to the other?!? By the way, his model doesn't address the day lengths either.

the mechanism of transition is being refined at the moment. i suspect aether is the medium which makes up space: clearly if you walk into an area of thinner space, you will go through it instantly without noticing any change. we move through space all the time.
why are day lengths not addressed? antarctica is not a ring in this model, the sun will shine on it as it does.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Perhaps there are 10 suns or something.
Perhaps the world is a globe.  That model works perfectly.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Perhaps there are 10 suns or something.
Perhaps the world is a globe.  That model works perfectly.

As usual you don't even read what the post is about. I was talking about the current flat Earth model with Antarctica being the ice ring.

Pepsi logo ,earth sun ice , and ice ring , logo was changed 2004 to representing the  change in the ice caps . To map something you have to know the correct shape  your looking at & what your trying to map . The world or the earth .
« Last Edit: March 25, 2015, 06:40:05 PM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

Yin Yang & remember the ice caps have changed.
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů: