I merely wish to know the shape of Earth and how it effects the physical objects around me.
All I receive are insults and incoherent descriptions of a world obviously not universally accepted.
Must I restate my questions again, mind you, if you don't have time to answer them... don't!
You get insults because you give insults. Just to give an example, you open by asking
Why is Earth officially defined as on oblate spheroid wider south of equatorial locations, making a pear shape.
As far as I have seen no photo from "space" shows this.
Keep in mind that mathematics cannot ignore such imperfections.
Ergo, all equations assuming Earth is a sphere must be re evaluated.
Unless Scientific American is lying, Earth is not even a perfect oblate spheroid.
Please explain why large errors and approximations are accepted as true for calculating the shape of our planet.
Even your question is couched in an insulting way, with "Unless
Scientific American is lying, Earth is not even a perfect oblate spheroid"
You attitude is exemplified by "Keep in mind that
mathematics cannot ignore such imperfections."
This is not a matter of mathematical errors, it is about measuring a huge and slightly irregular physical object.
You cannot calculate mathematically the dimensions of the earth, you have to
measure it!Then you get its reply from SpJunk
Difference between equatorial and polar diameters is 0.35%.
With error of 0.35% you can use approximation from "almost-circle" to "circle".
Draw ellipse 7.898 inches high and 7.926 inches wide.
Would you be able to see the deformation of 0.028 inches?
The thickness of the line you draw is 0.7 milimeters, which is roughly 0.028 inches.
You could google this for yourself:
"The mean radius of Earth is 3,959 miles (6,371 kilometers).
However, Earth is not quite a sphere.
The planet's rotation causes it to bulge at the equator.
Earth's equatorial diameter is 7,926 miles (12,756 km),
but from pole to pole, the diameter is 7,898 miles (12,714 km)
— a difference of only 28 miles (42 km)."
So, equator is 14 miles farther from the center of the earth than poles.
Which to me seems quite a reasonable answer, and as he says, it is easy for you to look up the same information, but how do you reply?
You could google this for yourself:
"The mean radius of Earth is 3,959 miles (6,371 kilometers).
However, Earth is not quite a sphere.
The planet's rotation causes it to bulge at the equator.
Earth's equatorial diameter is 7,926 miles (12,756 km),
This is why I believe in a Flat Earth. How did you calculate the mean? You obviously did it wrong.
Well, instead of rudely stating
You obviously did it wrong., maybe you could have asked a little more reasonably.
There are various ways of calculating the mean and the simple average of the maximum and minimum only works if what is being averaged is uniformly distributed.
You are so rude and insulting that you tend to get back what you you give!
And I find I hard to believe that "
This is why I believe in a Flat Earth" - for a few miles supposed discrepancy in the size of the earth!
That's quite funny really. Just try finding any measurements on the flat earth to anything like that accuracy.Things such as:
Height and size of sun and moon, then delve into just how these were measured.
Distance from the North Pole to the equator, then ask how it was mearsured.
The circumference of the equator, sorry, I thinkthat's a No No!
Mustn't ask that.
If you you want accurate measurements, you won't get them from the Flat Earth - that's see s to be a "
No
Equation
Zone ".
In the early part of this thread I tried to answer honestly and reasonably,
but there is only amount of being kicked in the teeth that anyone can be expected to take.