Flat Earth is the wrong size.

We know the distance from the north pole to the equator is 10000km (plus a couple more km).

We know the equator is just over 40000km. For a globe Earth that means the radius is 6378km.

If you have a flat Earth with a north pole to equator radius of 10000km then the equator circumference would be 62800km. But it isn't, it's 40000km.

We know the distance from the north pole to the equator is 10000km (plus a couple more km).

We know the equator is just over 40000km. For a globe Earth that means the radius is 6378km.

If you have a flat Earth with a north pole to equator radius of 10000km then the equator circumference would be 62800km. But it isn't, it's 40000km.

Shouldn't you really be more worried about the major problems with the alledged circumfrence of your Sphere Earth theory and fixing the problems instead of focusing on something you don't understand? The curvature of your Earth changes hourly. Tell us why?

Shouldn't you really be more worried about the major problems with the alledged circumfrence of your Sphere Earth theory and fixing the problems instead of focusing on something you don't understand? The curvature of your Earth changes hourly. Tell us why?

I'm more worried about the atmospheric bank, I don't go anywhere without a flashlight, just in case.

Shouldn't you really be more worried about the major problems with the alledged circumfrence of your Sphere Earth theory and fixing the problems instead of focusing on something you don't understand? The curvature of your Earth changes hourly. Tell us why?

Shouldn't you really be more worried about fixing the holes in your flat earth theory than trying to poke holes in RET?

Quote from: turtles on August 18, 2019, 10:17:53 AM

We know the distance from the north pole to the equator is 10000km (plus a couple more km).

We know the equator is just over 40000km. For a globe Earth that means the radius is 6378km.

If you have a flat Earth with a north pole to equator radius of 10000km then the equator circumference would be 62800km. But it isn't, it's 40000km.

Shouldn't you really be more worried about the major problems with the alledged circumfrence of your Sphere Earth theory and fixing the problems instead of focusing on something you don't understand? The curvature of your Earth changes hourly. Tell us why?

Ah, a classic flat earther deflection. I'll presume you can't answer it.

Next please!

Shouldn't you really be more worried about the major problems with the alledged circumfrence of your Sphere Earth theory and fixing the problems instead of focusing on something you don't understand?

Don't you mean "something YOU don't understand"?

The curvature of your Earth changes hourly. Tell us why?

Because the curvature of THE Earth does not change hourly, though there can be apparent differences, as YOU have pointed out, due to refraction.

Any apparent "changes" here are your own ignorance and fakery!

Bathurst Lighthouse, Plat Terra's Wolfie from 6 feet

This photo shows about the correct amount hidden!
      Distance = 12.4 miles, Viewer height = 6 feet; giving horizon distance =   3.2 miles, Hidden height - 48 feet.

Bathurst Lighthouse, Plat Terra's Faked Hidden from 10'

That photo is totally fabricated rubbish, Mr Plat Terra! I don't know what distance it was supposed to be from so I'll take it as 12.4 miles.
This is the amount that should be hidden from 10'!
      Distance = 12.4 miles, Viewer height = 10 feet; giving horizon distance = 4.18 miles, Hidden height = 38 feet.
So what is the hidden height in your fake foto?

Bathurst Lighthouse,  Plat Terra's from 10'

You claim that photo shows NO CURVATURE but that is total rubbish! Much of the island is still hidden is that - the shore-line is completely hidden.
And it's such a crappy photo with obvious miraging, like most of your photos, that it's totally USELESS.

The next photo has been cropped so that the lighthouse is the same size and look how much island can be seen!

Bathurst Lighthouse, from Wolfie6020 and all Lighthouse and Island visible from 100'

Why do you keep showing crappy photos full of mirages etc? Are they the only ones that fit "your narrative" ?

Stop wasting everybody's time with all the rubbish that proves NOTHING!

Quote from: turtles on August 18, 2019, 10:17:53 AM

We know the distance from the north pole to the equator is 10000km (plus a couple more km).

We know the equator is just over 40000km. For a globe Earth that means the radius is 6378km.

If you have a flat Earth with a north pole to equator radius of 10000km then the equator circumference would be 62800km. But it isn't, it's 40000km.

Shouldn't you really be more worried about the major problems with the alledged circumfrence of your Sphere Earth theory and fixing the problems instead of focusing on something you don't understand? The curvature of your Earth changes hourly. Tell us why?

No problems when you actually understand the subject and realize there is often refraction over water which you are not accounting for. Too bad you don't understand what you're talking about.

The sinking ship effect is continually given as a proof of a globe earth. It's not a proof if it is inconsistent.

It also calls into question the ancient assumptions about the globe earth that were based on things like this.

"The ship sinks and I saw a shadow on the moon. Behold! The Earth is a Globe!" = Massive unscientific error.

The sinking ship effect is continually given as a proof of a globe earth. It's not a proof if it is inconsistent.

It also calls into question the ancient assptions about the globe earth that were based on things like this.

"The ship sinks and I saw a shadow on the moon. Behold! The Earth is a Globe!" = Massive unscientific error.

Riiiight, but care to comment on the OP?

The sinking ship effect is continually given as a proof of a globe earth. It's not a proof if it is inconsistent.

It also calls into question the ancient assumptions about the globe earth that were based on things like this.

"The ship sinks and I saw a shadow on the moon. Behold! The Earth is a Globe!" = Massive unscientific error.

Where is your evidence for a flat earth?
What is your explanation for the varying shadows in the craters of the moon?
For that matter how do you explain such simple things as lunar phases and eclipses?

The sinking ship effect is continually given as a proof of a globe earth. It's not a proof if it is inconsistent.

It also calls into question the ancient assumptions about the globe earth that were based on things like this.

"The ship sinks and I saw a shadow on the moon. Behold! The Earth is a Globe!" = Massive unscientific error.

There is an official " Navy Manual  For Lookouts  " which has tables for showing the distances to the horizon for various heights for the observer above the level of the sea. Because of the curvature of the earth the higher the person is, the farther he can see to the horizon. The man in the crow's nest can see farther to the horizon than the man on the bridge. At sea the distance you can see things on the surface of the sea is limited by the distance you can see to the horizon.
This is consistent. Do you think this is inconsistent and why ?
Why do you think it is not proof ? It has long been accepted as proof that the earth is not flat.

What is the flat Earth answer and/or explanation  for refuting such simple things as this information ?
Where is your evidence and/or experience at sea regarding the distance to the horizon ?
Are you refuting the Navy's evidence ?

Question for moderators.
Should this really belong in the "Debate" section ?

The sinking ship effect is continually given as a proof of a globe earth. It's not a proof if it is inconsistent.

Then it's a good thing that it isn't the only proof of a globe earth.  Celestial navigation and sustained space flight (including manned space flight) are also quite conclusive evidence of a round earth.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 18, 2019, 03:14:32 PM

The sinking ship effect is continually given as a proof of a globe earth. It's not a proof if it is inconsistent.

Then it's a good thing that it isn't the only proof of a globe earth.  Celestial navigation and sustained space flight (including manned space flight) are also quite conclusive evidence of a round earth.

It's not just "the sinking ship".
It's also "the sinking land".
But celestial navigation and space flight are also denied by FE.

Quote from: turtles on August 18, 2019, 10:17:53 AM

We know the distance from the north pole to the equator is 10000km (plus a couple more km).

We know the equator is just over 40000km. For a globe Earth that means the radius is 6378km.

If you have a flat Earth with a north pole to equator radius of 10000km then the equator circumference would be 62800km. But it isn't, it's 40000km.

Shouldn't you really be more worried about the major problems with the alledged circumfrence of your Sphere Earth theory and fixing the problems instead of focusing on something you don't understand? The curvature of your Earth changes hourly. Tell us why?

Can you provide evidence of the circumference of the Flat Earth ?

Quote from: turtles on August 18, 2019, 10:17:53 AM

We know the distance from the north pole to the equator is 10000km (plus a couple more km).

We know the equator is just over 40000km. For a globe Earth that means the radius is 6378km.

If you have a flat Earth with a north pole to equator radius of 10000km then the equator circumference would be 62800km. But it isn't, it's 40000km.

Shouldn't you really be more worried about the major problems with the alledged circumfrence of your Sphere Earth theory and fixing the problems instead of focusing on something you don't understand? The curvature of your Earth changes hourly. Tell us why?

Maybe we should stick to the OP's topic. Can you explain the discrepancy between the distance from the North Pole to the Equator and the length of the equator on a hypothetical flat Earth?

As a phew theorist,  I have difficulty to meet logics concerning distances between familiar cities around my city, e.g. Jakarta and Bandung.

"Bahagianya Tami, Perjalanan dari Bandung ke Jakarta Ditempuh 4 Jam"

"Tami was so happy, the trip from Bandung to Jakarta (only) took 4 hours"

https://m.detik.com/news/berita/d-4580525/bahagianya-tami-perjalanan-dari-bandung-ke-jakarta-ditempuh-4-jam

No official distance table refered. It's a real experience that local people have recognized the article's validity.

Jakarta - Bandung distance of 104 km comes from globe assumption.
I am not even convinced if the land trip distance is said to be only "151 km".

Tami was happy because there was no traffic jam. And one thing for sure, there is a toll road named Cipularang between both cities. The car didn't go snail at all. The speed 151 km / 4 hours AKA 37.75 kph is even still illogical.

So 4 hours travel time is a normal travel time. For what speed is it? 60 kph? 70 kph? 80 kph? Or more?
The real distance can be at least 4h times 60 kph = 240 km. 
Straight distance might be at least 180 km.

By long/lat, Jakarta - Bandung is around 1° of distance. It cannot be around 104 km by flight or 151 km by land.

Conclusion: 40,000 km for earth's (equator) circumference is incorrect. 

By long/lat, Jakarta - Bandung is around 1° of distance. It cannot be around 104 km by flight or 151 km by land.

Conclusion: 40,000 km for earth's (equator) circumference is incorrect. 

Conclusion: You have big traffic jams.

I drive from here, near Brisbane Queensland (27.470° S, 153.025° E), west to Miles (26.6583° S, 150.1872° E).
A distance calculator shows the direct distance as about 300 km and the road distance is 333 km from here.
The driving distance from Brisbane shows as 338.2 km in 4 h 9 min but from here we have motorway or good roads almost all the way and drive it in under 4 hours.

That distance is not far off that expected on the Globe.

Correction:
At Cikampek she got trafic jams, and then she escaped the toll road and took another toll road until got home with total car riding 4 hours.

Government has target that Jakarta - Bandung will be 3 hours. 3h Χ 60 kph? It's still ridiculous for a toll road traveling. While 3h Χ 70 kph or 3h Χ 80 kph will make more sense. It gives the distance to be 210 km to 240 km.

By "archery bow" prediction which gives ratio of string : 90° arc = √2 : 1.5857864 = 0.89 so the straight distance will be approximately 187 km to 214 km.

By the way for phew map, one degree equals 176 km. So 187 km for Jakarta - Bandung direct distance will be closer to phew's prediction.

A distance calculator shows the direct distance as about 300 km and the road distance is 333 km from here.
The driving distance from Brisbane shows as 338.2 km in 4 h 9 min but from here we have motorway or good roads almost all the way and drive it in under 4 hours.

That distance is not far off that expected on the Globe.

Phew's southern hemiplane and globe's one have no big issue. Both are close.

At least if your car's speed was 84 kph, that's common. So if 151 km:4h gives the speed 37.75 kph, there will be something wrong with globe's distance information, as much as on northern hemiplane that globe's distances "reduce" the speed of any vehicles, especially for short distance flights e.g. airplane's speed will be "left behind" motogp's. Nope.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 19, 2019, 12:35:13 AM

A distance calculator shows the direct distance as about 300 km and the road distance is 333 km from here.
The driving distance from Brisbane shows as 338.2 km in 4 h 9 min but from here we have motorway or good roads almost all the way and drive it in under 4 hours.

That distance is not far off that expected on the Globe.

Phew's southern hemiplane and globe's one have no big issue. Both are close.

At least if your car's speed was 84 kph, that's common. So if 151 km:4h gives the speed 37.75 kph, there will be something wrong with globe's distance information, as much as on northern hemiplane that globe's distances "reduce" the speed of any vehicles, especially for short distance flights e.g. airplane's speed will be "left behind" motogp's. Nope.

Why are you talking about driving times on some local journey? What's that got to do with the length of the equator? Like you can work out anything reliably from one person's car travel times.

I just want to know why the equator is 40000km long when it should be 62800km long on a flat earth.

I just want to know why the equator is 40000km long when it should be 62800km long on a flat earth.

I've tried asking similar questions and just get asked things like how do you know "the equator is 40000km long"?

Such as in posts like:
         Flat Earth Debate / Re: Poll: Connection between relief and shape of the earth « Message by rabinoz on December 14, 2016, 10:19:27 AM »
and   Flat Earth General / Re: How many are involved? « Message by rabinoz on December 27, 2016, 08:14:40 AM »

So made a thread on that question: The Dimensions of the Earth will not fit on a Flat Surface Only to get no sensible flat earth answers - go figure.

The only answer I have to "why the equator is 40000km long when it should be 62800km long on a flat earth?" is the few flat earthers will tackle a topic where they know that they can't win.

As a phew theorist,  I have difficulty to meet logics concerning distances between familiar cities around my city, e.g. Jakarta and Bandung.

"Bahagianya Tami, Perjalanan dari Bandung ke Jakarta Ditempuh 4 Jam"

"Tami was so happy, the trip from Bandung to Jakarta (only) took 4 hours"

https://m.detik.com/news/berita/d-4580525/bahagianya-tami-perjalanan-dari-bandung-ke-jakarta-ditempuh-4-jam

No official distance table refered. It's a real experience that local people have recognized the article's validity.

Jakarta - Bandung distance of 104 km comes from globe assumption.
I am not even convinced if the land trip distance is said to be only "151 km".

Tami was happy because there was no traffic jam. And one thing for sure, there is a toll road named Cipularang between both cities. The car didn't go snail at all. The speed 151 km / 4 hours AKA 37.75 kph is even still illogical.

So 4 hours travel time is a normal travel time. For what speed is it? 60 kph? 70 kph? 80 kph? Or more?
The real distance can be at least 4h times 60 kph = 240 km. 
Straight distance might be at least 180 km.

By long/lat, Jakarta - Bandung is around 1° of distance. It cannot be around 104 km by flight or 151 km by land.

Conclusion: 40,000 km for earth's (equator) circumference is incorrect. 

Cut the crap dude. all cars (I'm sure your car too) are equiped with odometers. just drive the damned route from Jakarta to Bandung, check your odometer and voila you know the distance.

Quote from: Danang on August 18, 2019, 11:59:39 PM

As a phew theorist,  I have difficulty to meet logics concerning distances between familiar cities around my city, e.g. Jakarta and Bandung.

"Bahagianya Tami, Perjalanan dari Bandung ke Jakarta Ditempuh 4 Jam"

"Tami was so happy, the trip from Bandung to Jakarta (only) took 4 hours"

https://m.detik.com/news/berita/d-4580525/bahagianya-tami-perjalanan-dari-bandung-ke-jakarta-ditempuh-4-jam

No official distance table refered. It's a real experience that local people have recognized the article's validity.

Jakarta - Bandung distance of 104 km comes from globe assumption.
I am not even convinced if the land trip distance is said to be only "151 km".

Tami was happy because there was no traffic jam. And one thing for sure, there is a toll road named Cipularang between both cities. The car didn't go snail at all. The speed 151 km / 4 hours AKA 37.75 kph is even still illogical.

So 4 hours travel time is a normal travel time. For what speed is it? 60 kph? 70 kph? 80 kph? Or more?
The real distance can be at least 4h times 60 kph = 240 km. 
Straight distance might be at least 180 km.

By long/lat, Jakarta - Bandung is around 1° of distance. It cannot be around 104 km by flight or 151 km by land.

Conclusion: 40,000 km for earth's (equator) circumference is incorrect. 

Cut the crap dude. all cars (I'm sure your car too) are equiped with odometers. just drive the damned route from Jakarta to Bandung, check your odometer and voila you know the distance.

That's supposed to be a good idea. But, nowadays almost all things are wrong. It's like to refer pi=3.14159 by taken for granted. That's already debunked by serious mathematicians, regardless till today pi=3.14159 is still regarded as 'truth' through out the world.

Quote from: Danang on August 19, 2019, 02:58:16 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 19, 2019, 12:35:13 AM

A distance calculator shows the direct distance as about 300 km and the road distance is 333 km from here.
The driving distance from Brisbane shows as 338.2 km in 4 h 9 min but from here we have motorway or good roads almost all the way and drive it in under 4 hours.

That distance is not far off that expected on the Globe.

Phew's southern hemiplane and globe's one have no big issue. Both are close.

At least if your car's speed was 84 kph, that's common. So if 151 km:4h gives the speed 37.75 kph, there will be something wrong with globe's distance information, as much as on northern hemiplane that globe's distances "reduce" the speed of any vehicles, especially for short distance flights e.g. airplane's speed will be "left behind" motogp's. Nope.

Why are you talking about driving times on some local journey? What's that got to do with the length of the equator? Like you can work out anything reliably from one person's car travel times.

I just want to know why the equator is 40000km long when it should be 62800km long on a flat earth.

For phew equator circumference equals tahu times 10,000 km = 63.341.4 km.
So we measure per degree equals 63,431.4 km / 360° = 176.1983 km, not 111.11 km which will ruin the logics of real distances. 4 hours of traveling with the wrong distance of 151 km will give 37.75 kph. I don't think the speed was like a snail for such a traveling with toll roads.

New finding for phew: the total length for 90° triangle base line + 90° arc = √2 + 1.5857864 = exact "3". And for all 360° equals "12" !!

WOW 

We know the distance from the north pole to the equator is 10000km (plus a couple more km).

We know the equator is just over 40000km. For a globe Earth that means the radius is 6378km.

If you have a flat Earth with a north pole to equator radius of 10000km then the equator circumference would be 62800km. But it isn't, it's 40000km.

I have brought this up in the past myself.  No answer.  All we get here is Plat Terra and Tom Bishop attempting to derail the thread away from something they can't answer. 

That's supposed to be a good idea. But, nowadays almost all things are wrong. It's like to refer pi=3.14159 by taken for granted. That's already debunked by serious mathematicians, regardless till today pi=3.14159 is still regarded as 'truth' through out the world.

What are you talking about dude?
You have nothing to do with pi or phew or whatsoever.
The odometer just keeps track how many turns your wheelaxis makes. one turn equals, let's say 2m, so 1000 turns = 2km.
Besides, you somehow do trust the spedometer in your car, which is usually the same instrument and uses the same sensor on your wheelaxis to derive your speed from it.
Besides, if you drive a certain route and your navigation gives almost the same distance as your odometer...isn't that then evidence enough to trust your odometer?

Quote from: napoleon on August 19, 2019, 05:19:14 AM

Quote from: Danang on August 18, 2019, 11:59:39 PM

As a phew theorist,  I have difficulty to meet logics concerning distances between familiar cities around my city, e.g. Jakarta and Bandung.

"Bahagianya Tami, Perjalanan dari Bandung ke Jakarta Ditempuh 4 Jam"

"Tami was so happy, the trip from Bandung to Jakarta (only) took 4 hours"

https://m.detik.com/news/berita/d-4580525/bahagianya-tami-perjalanan-dari-bandung-ke-jakarta-ditempuh-4-jam

No official distance table refered. It's a real experience that local people have recognized the article's validity.

Jakarta - Bandung distance of 104 km comes from globe assumption.
I am not even convinced if the land trip distance is said to be only "151 km".

Tami was happy because there was no traffic jam. And one thing for sure, there is a toll road named Cipularang between both cities. The car didn't go snail at all. The speed 151 km / 4 hours AKA 37.75 kph is even still illogical.

So 4 hours travel time is a normal travel time. For what speed is it? 60 kph? 70 kph? 80 kph? Or more?
The real distance can be at least 4h times 60 kph = 240 km. 
Straight distance might be at least 180 km.

By long/lat, Jakarta - Bandung is around 1° of distance. It cannot be around 104 km by flight or 151 km by land.

Conclusion: 40,000 km for earth's (equator) circumference is incorrect. 

Cut the crap dude. all cars (I'm sure your car too) are equiped with odometers. just drive the damned route from Jakarta to Bandung, check your odometer and voila you know the distance.

That's supposed to be a good idea. But, nowadays almost all things are wrong. It's like to refer pi=3.14159 by taken for granted. That's already debunked by serious mathematicians, regardless till today pi=3.14159 is still regarded as 'truth' through out the world.

Jane and curiousssesrs are very serious and both agree you are wrong.
Phew loses.

In the FE map the southern hemisphere is three times as big the northern hemisphere but somehow they both get the same amount of light when the sun is on the equator.

In the FE map Australia looks bigger than Russia and Brazil looks like it could fit the USA twice.

The FE map is so wrong in so many levels it can't be called a map anymore. It's there just for the memes.

Thank you everyone.

And still no answer from a flat earther to explain why the equator is so much shorter than it should be on the flat earth.