Total area of Earth

Quote from: zork link=topic=67814.msg1819426#msg1819426

Its been talked here maybe hundreds of times already. Erastothenes, Al-Biruni? As you give so good examples here then you can find out for yourself what other things you must measure. Point is, there are ways to measure something, then calculate raidus of the earth and then total area of the earth in round earth model. Can you give me a hint what things I can measure to calculate area of the flat earth? Or some names who have done it and I can do research about them?

Am I to understand that you have not actually measured these "other things" then? Pity.

Ahh, Orthodoxy. If I don't do it personally then its moot but even when there is all instructions available you don't do it either. And then you bitch about why I didn't do it.

I will grant you that if we assume that light from the sun arrives in parallel rays across the earth's surface, and we assume the earth is round, and we assume Eratosthenes's measurements were correct (they weren't) one could then calculate the circumference of the earth under those assumptions.  But we certainly couldn't be said to have measured it.  We would simply have a faith-based belief in the circumference of a globe.

   If you have beef with Erastothenes, take Al-Biruni. Or search some other person/variation. I at least gave you possibility to do something and there are instructions. You gave me big zero in context of flat earth. And only complain that I didn't do it personally like it matters in any way.

Why bother with this discussion?

510m km^2 for globe case. Well founded result. You can even find that value using results from the video with round earth experiment that I've posted recently.

Uknown for flat case. No specific radius of the disc is known.

Why bother with this discussion?

510m km^2 for globe case.

Yes, we're all familiar enough with geometry to calculate the area of a sphere for a given number. What I asked was has anyone of you has measured the area, or failing that, measured the radius. The answer seems to be no. The area of the earth seems to me then to be unknown.

Quote from: Brouwer on September 06, 2016, 11:27:58 PM

Why bother with this discussion?

510m km^2 for globe case.

Yes, we're all familiar enough with geometry to calculate the area of a sphere for a given number. What I asked was has anyone of you has measured the area, or failing that, measured the radius. The answer seems to be no. The area of the earth seems to me then to be unknown.

Have you (or any other flat earther)  measured the height of the moon on the flat earth.

I suspect that the answer is no. The height of the moon on the flat earth then seems to me then to be unknown.

So why is the Wiki allowed to claim

The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Have you (or any other flat earther)  measured the size and orbit of the "shadow object".

I suspect that the answer is no. The size and orbit of the "shadow object" flat earth then seems to me then to be unknown.

So why is the Wiki allowed to claim

The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.

This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . .
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter.

I could ask about the height and size of the sun, the orbits of the planets and on and on, because almost everything seems to just guessed.

Or globe observations are just "taken over".

At least on the Globe, in most cases, we know who made the measurements, how they did it and that results they got.

At least on the Globe, in most cases, we know who made the measurements, how they did it and that results they got.

And, with enuogh patience, knowledge and motivation, we can reproduce them.

With no guessing.

Eratostenes was clever enough to know how to measure the circumference.

On the other side, FE don't know how long is the equator or how far it is from the equator to the north pole.

Quote from: Ski on September 08, 2016, 12:39:01 AM

Yes, we're all familiar enough with geometry to calculate the area of a sphere for a given number. What I asked was has anyone of you has measured the area, or failing that, measured the radius. The answer seems to be no. The area of the earth seems to me then to be unknown.

Have you (or any other flat earther)  measured the height of the moon on the flat earth.

I suspect that the answer is no. The height of the moon on the flat earth then seems to me then to be unknown.

I've already told you as much in one of the dozens of posts where you've ignored the content in favour of starting new threads to say, "The distance to the moon is unknown!" as if it were some sort of "Gotcha!" moment.
Just like I've told you that I find the idea of a shadow object specious. Or any of the dozens of other answers you've ignored in favour of reciting your catechisms throughout the boards. 

Eratosthenes did not measure the earth, Brouwer. He made assumptions and calculated the circumference based on them. You've not even done half as much as he, however. You just listen to the sermons from the pulpits.

Eratosthenes did not measure the earth, Brouwer. He made assumptions and calculated the circumference based on them.

Measuring the Earth that long ago is by assumption measuring its radius/diameter/circumference/area/volume (pick one). He didn't made any assumption as he already knew the Earth was spherical.

You've not even done half as much as he, however. You just listen to the sermons from the pulpits.

Irrelevant and classic FE argument.

there isnt a total area of the earth otherwise we be falling off the edge,it goes on and on forever

there isnt a total area of the earth otherwise we be falling off the edge,it goes on and on forever

Infinite plane Earth cannot phisically exist.

Quote from: -leigh- on September 08, 2016, 11:58:10 PM

there isnt a total area of the earth otherwise we be falling off the edge,it goes on and on forever

Infinite plane Earth cannot phisically exist.

neither can a big spinning ball keeping water stuck to it

Quote from: Brouwer on September 09, 2016, 12:01:10 AM

Quote from: -leigh- on September 08, 2016, 11:58:10 PM

there isnt a total area of the earth otherwise we be falling off the edge,it goes on and on forever

Infinite plane Earth cannot phisically exist.

neither can a big spinning ball keeping water stuck to it

It can, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.

Eratosthenes did not measure the earth, Brouwer. He made assumptions and calculated the circumference based on them. You've not even done half as much as he, however. You just listen to the sermons from the pulpits.

There is no reason to measure everything when you can calculate something. And its not wrong to assume that earth is round if there is other evidence for that and devise a method for calculating that part which you can't measure directly. Also its not only Erastothenes but Al Biruni also. Two different methods. Both get sufficiently same result. both are repeatable. But hey, why to even talk to you. You are so deep in Orthodoxy that it doesn't reach you.

Quote from: -leigh- on September 09, 2016, 12:05:21 AM

Quote from: Brouwer on September 09, 2016, 12:01:10 AM

Quote from: -leigh- on September 08, 2016, 11:58:10 PM

there isnt a total area of the earth otherwise we be falling off the edge,it goes on and on forever

Infinite plane Earth cannot phisically exist.

neither can a big spinning ball keeping water stuck to it

It can, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.

hahaha it can your funny mind dude

Quote from: rabinoz on September 08, 2016, 04:22:05 AM

Quote from: Ski on September 08, 2016, 12:39:01 AM

Yes, we're all familiar enough with geometry to calculate the area of a sphere for a given number. What I asked was has anyone of you has measured the area, or failing that, measured the radius. The answer seems to be no. The area of the earth seems to me then to be unknown.

Have you (or any other flat earther)  measured the height of the moon on the flat earth.

I suspect that the answer is no. The height of the moon on the flat earth then seems to me then to be unknown.

I've already told you as much in one of the dozens of posts where you've ignored the content in favour of starting new threads to say, "The distance to the moon is unknown!" as if it were some sort of "Gotcha!" moment.
Just like I've told you that I find the idea of a shadow object specious. Or any of the dozens of other answers you've ignored in favour of reciting your catechisms throughout the boards. 

I am afraid I am at loss as to these "dozens of posts where you've ignored the content in favour of starting new threads to say, 'The distance to the moon is unknown!'"

I can find these posts where I mentioned the height of the moon.
Re: Proof that Sir Isaac Newton was co-opted,
Re: North Star, but nothing from you on either of these, then
Re: Total area of Earth, which of course got a big response.

I cannot remember or find any thread that I have started like "The distance to the moon is unknown!"
Though I could not complete the search as the site became too busy.

But my point in this particular instance was that you seemed be taking a Brouwer to task for not having personally measured the area or radius of the Globe, yet with the Flat Earth everything is essentially guessed.

It seems funny that Flat Earthers can the most outrageous claims about the globe^[1], but are so touchy about deficiencies in their own model.

[1] And say about globe supporters like: liar, shill, satanist and numerous words that I would rather not repeat.

 At least we know something about Ski's model.
Nothing is calculable, all must be measured.
No known distances, sizes.
Size of the sun and moon - unknown.
Distance to the sun and moon - unknown.
Earth shape and distances on earth (equator, from pole to pole, from side to side ,etc) - unknown
Known - its flat. And something is holding us on earth. I guess g is also known.

At least we know something about Ski's model.
Nothing is calculable, all must be measured.
No known distances, sizes.
Size of the sun and moon - unknown.
Distance to the sun and moon - unknown.
Earth shape and distances on earth (equator, from pole to pole, from side to side ,etc) - unknown
Known - its flat. And something is holding us on earth. I guess g is also known.

dont forget theres cheese on the moon

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2016, 07:57:44 AM

At least we know something about Ski's model.
Nothing is calculable, all must be measured.
No known distances, sizes.
Size of the sun and moon - unknown.
Distance to the sun and moon - unknown.
Earth shape and distances on earth (equator, from pole to pole, from side to side ,etc) - unknown
Known - its flat. And something is holding us on earth. I guess g is also known.

dont forget theres cheese on the moon

Actually, there is no cheese on the moon because there are no animals living there.

Quote from: -leigh- on September 09, 2016, 09:08:29 AM

Quote from: zork on September 09, 2016, 07:57:44 AM

At least we know something about Ski's model.
Nothing is calculable, all must be measured.
No known distances, sizes.
Size of the sun and moon - unknown.
Distance to the sun and moon - unknown.
Earth shape and distances on earth (equator, from pole to pole, from side to side ,etc) - unknown
Known - its flat. And something is holding us on earth. I guess g is also known.

dont forget theres cheese on the moon

Actually, there is no cheese on the moon because there are no animals living there.

well i was brought up saying the moon was full of cheese,il have a word with my mother if i see her again,and she always said it was chedder cheese

Quote from: Ski on September 08, 2016, 10:31:12 PM

Eratosthenes did not measure the earth, Brouwer. He made assumptions and calculated the circumference based on them.

Measuring the Earth that long ago is by assumption measuring its radius/diameter/circumference/area/volume (pick one). He didn't made any assumption as he already knew the Earth was spherical.

Quote from: Ski on September 08, 2016, 10:31:12 PM

You've not even done half as much as he, however. You just listen to the sermons from the pulpits.

Irrelevant and classic FE argument.

Entirely relevant. You don't have knowledge you have a faith-based belief.

Entirely relevant. You don't have knowledge you have a faith-based belief.

Here's your chance to be better than that. Show me your own measures. Or any measures regarding the size of FE disc. Show me anything that makes sense.

Quote from: Ski on September 10, 2016, 11:28:46 PM

Entirely relevant. You don't have knowledge you have a faith-based belief.

Here's your chance to be better than that. Show me your own measures. Or any measures regarding the size of FE disc. Show me anything that makes sense.

I do not know the area of the earth. I have not personally measured it. I have an informed belief. The difference between you and I is that I feely admit the epistemological differences while you cling to your beliefs as though it were handed down from a pulpit (which it was).

Well, the earth is pretty close to a sphere, and it's radius is 3.959 million miles.

Surface area of a sphere=4(pi)r²

Substitute: 4(pi)3958²

equals 196961284 miles².

People who have actually measured it got a result of 196940000 miles²

So an error of .011% So earth is actually very spherical. Neat.

Congratulations.  I could calculate the area of a disc using a bunch of assumptions and blindly assert it to be a fact.  How impressed would you be? Probably about as impressed as I am with your geometry.

I'm saying that cartographers have measured the area of the earth. Then I was using the accepted values of radius to calculate it for myself, and they match very well. So unless you think every cartographer and planetary scientist is lying, I'd say that my numbers are pretty good.

Ok, if distance from North Pole to Ice Wall is 12 430 miles,
then total area of the Flat Earth would be 485 391 048.8 square miles.

Somewhere about 2.45 times bigger than the Globe Earth.

Unless the Ice Wall is somewhat elliptical.

Congratulations.  I could calculate the area of a disc using a bunch of assumptions and blindly assert it to be a fact.  How impressed would you be? Probably about as impressed as I am with your geometry.

Do you have a figure for the area of the earth?

I'm saying that cartographers have measured the area of the earth.

Who?  When? How?

I do not know the area of the earth. I have not personally measured it. I have an informed belief. The difference between you and I is that I feely admit the epistemological differences while you cling to your beliefs as though it were handed down from a pulpit (which it was).

The difference between you and me is that you have nothing and I have sources with evidences/proofs. You stick to your beliefs whereas I can refer to actual observation or measurement.

You don't know the area of the earth, noted.

Ok, if distance from North Pole to Ice Wall is 12 430 miles,

If? You are giving FE too much credit. They don't know how far it is to the equator, let alone how far it is to the "edge".

Quote from: Ski on September 11, 2016, 08:30:35 PM

I do not know the area of the earth. I have not personally measured it. I have an informed belief. The difference between you and I is that I feely admit the epistemological differences while you cling to your beliefs as though it were handed down from a pulpit (which it was).

The difference between you and me is that you have nothing and I have sources with evidences/proofs. You stick to your beliefs whereas I can refer to actual observation or measurement.

You don't know the area of the earth, noted.

Quote from: SpJunk on September 11, 2016, 09:15:04 PM

Ok, if distance from North Pole to Ice Wall is 12 430 miles,

If? You are giving FE too much credit. They don't know how far it is to the equator, let alone how far it is to the "edge".

I fail to see the problem with the area of the (known) flat earth. The "always accurate"  Wiki says:

The Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects.

See, it's easy! 
Presumably, like everything in the Wiki we "just accept it" and don't dare ask how it was determined or question the accuracy,
whereas everything to do with the globe has to be justified with no assumptions allowed!

I have repeatedly questioned the claimed 5,000 or so height of the sun, and for all practical purposes just get ignored.

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 11, 2016, 09:06:04 PM

I'm saying that cartographers have measured the area of the earth.

Who?  When? How?

I don't know who, I don't know when. But I know how: just take a stick, a foot long (it's gonna be faster with two-foot stick) and put it flat on the ground, and go ahead with this stick, around the (globe) - wrong! - around flat earth, moving it with one foot intervals (two foot intervals with two-foot stick). It's really easy. Don't trust NASA! Don't trust google. They are the same satanic people. Trust yourself only!!
For more guidance, don't hesitate to ask; I can't wait your question(s), kid.