[Southernhemispere]

Please can any trusted FE'er give me what the distance from the Equator to the North Pole is? I would like to use it to show a few facts, but if I use the figure I have in mind, l might be asked to prove it! Thanks.

[Tom Bishop]

http://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter

[Southernhemispere]

Thanks Tom, I wanted it confirmed before I continued.

Erathostenes calculated it as 12250 nautical miles, which is equal to 14100 miles. Using the circumference of a circle as pi x diameter, the circumference at the equator works out as 88600 miles. This compares poorly to the usual figure of 24874 miles usually used, being 256% greater!

It also makes the surface of the earth equal to 1.25 billion square miles (pi times radius squared) compared to the 196.9 million square miles on the globe model, or 6.3 times bigger. Lucky world, we have 6 times the area expected in which to find natural resources! Unfortunately for the Northern hemisphere countries, the Southern hemisphere has 4 times as much area according to the FE map, since you can calculate this easily as the area of a circle with twice the radius of another circle, has 4 times it's area.

Now we will look at the distance the sun travels over the Tropic of Cancer (June solstice), which would be a circle with a radius of 3642 miles, it is 22900 miles in a day The radius of the circle at the Tropic of Capricorn would be 7284 miles, so the distance the sun would have to travel (December solstice) is 45800 miles, or twice as far. This means that the sun has a speed of over 1900 miles an hour on 21 December relative to the earth directly below it. If it was just 3000 miles high, you would be able to watch it moving across the sky, especially from directly below from 11am to 1 pm, as it would move about 65 degrees in the sky in that time (from 32.5 degrees from vertical on one side, to 32.5 degrees from vertical on the other side, using simple trigonometry of a triangle with sides 3000, 1900 and a right angle between them). This would be well over twice the actual visible movement during this time.

These things make Erathostenes' estimates and the FE map look a bit out of kilter with reality don't you think?

[rabinoz]

http://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter

I suppose you did read it?

Erathostenes on Diameter
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7°12' south of zenith at the other city.

As you well know, the same figures can be used to calculate the height of the sun from height = distance/tan(angle) = 500/tan(7.2°) = 3,959 Nm or 4,556 statute miles!

But, I thought that the sun was 3,000 miles high?

Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

This 3,000 mile height agrees with Voliva''s calculation of height of the sun from height = distance/tan(angle) = 3,000/tan(45°) = 3,000 statute miles

So, which is it? It can't be both!

And, if the calculation of sun height using these figures is so questionable, is the size of the earth any more reliable?

Going back to Erastothanes measurement, actually
Syene  (now Aswan) is at 24.0889° N, 32.8998° E and
Alexandria is at 31.2001° N, 29.9187° E making the latitude difference 7.11° and the distance between them is 524 statute miles.
I'll let you do the sums. Since they are not on the same meridian it's a bit harder.

But, it all boils down to the TFES Wiki having only the vaguest values for the size of the earth or the height of their sun!

[nametaken]

I don't have much to say about what has been said already in this topic, just thought I'd throw some random related facts that might prove interesting.

Flat Earthers might not agree upon the reliability of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. Not many flight paths come close enough to the North pole to be reliable in determining exact distance (the only modern way of verifying I can think of other than resorting to measuring on google earth); obviously equatorial circumference vs the distance between NP and EQ is a major telling point in the shape of the world.

The Metre was originally created around this distance. From wikipedia:

"The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre

"The Equator is about 40,075 kilometres (24,901 mi) long; some 78.7% lies across water and 21.3% over land."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator

Obviously, the distance to the Poles from any direction from the equator is good proof of the shape of the earth, though it can be hard to get reliable source info. Wikipedia, for example, is ominously quiet about it (from what I can tell). Also, interesting fun fact, is that our "North Pole" is actually magnetic south; the compass needle that seeks it is 'N' for north; it fell into common [miss]conception that the "N" of a compass meant 'this way to north'. And of course, the 'globe' is antipodal ('North and South' poles 'drift' somewhat independent of each other, neither do they exactly intersect the 'axis of rotation').

[Tom Bishop]

And, if the calculation of sun height using these figures is so questionable, is the size of the earth any more reliable?

The article I link describes the method used. It shows that the classic experiments which are often used to show that Round Earth has been "proven" can be reinterpreted on a flat one.

But relying on the Ancient Greeks makes the entire matter, of course, unreliable. For one thing this experiment was conducted before the invention of mechanical clocks, so how did Eratosthenes know what the sun was doing simultaneously at the same point in time between two 500-distant mile locations? The standard narrative that he could have computed any Round Earth figures is questionable at best.

[Rounder]

But relying on the Ancient Greeks makes the entire matter, of course, unreliable.

You've got a real hatred for the Ancient Greeks that I just don't understand.  Geometry works, Tom, get over it!  (You probably can't stand the fact that they disagree with your patron saint Rowbotham.)

For one thing this experiment was conducted before the invention of mechanical clocks, so how did Eratosthenes know what the sun was doing simultaneously at the same point in time between two 500-distant mile locations?

He was using that most ancient of all clocks, THE SUN ITSELF.

The standard narrative that he could have computed any Round Earth figures is questionable at best.

This is rich, coming from a guy who continues to send us to a book which claims that islands and continents float on a world wide sea.  And the sea hovers on a layer of steam sustained by seawater boiling on contact with a literally Biblical lake of fire!  "Questionable" hardly begins to cover it!

[Tom Bishop]

He was using that most ancient of all clocks, THE SUN ITSELF.

Using a clock to test its own accuracy? How does that work?

[Rounder]

He was using that most ancient of all clocks, THE SUN ITSELF.

Using a clock to test its own accuracy? How does that work?

What are you talking about?  He wasn't trying to calibrate time.  He was using local zenith as the timekeeping mark.  Simultaneous measurement was neither claimed nor required.  On the day when the zenith sun cast no shadow in Syene, the zenith sun cast a shadow of 7.2° in Alexandria.

[markjo]

The article I link describes the method used. It shows that the classic experiments which are often used to show that Round Earth has been "proven" can be reinterpreted on a flat one.

The key problem that you keep ignoring is that conducting the experiment from different locations on a flat earth will not give consistent results.  On the other hand, consistent results are possible when performing the experiment using different locations on a sphere.  I know this to be true because I performed this same experiment on a small globe in a 9th grade earth science lab experiment and came up with the same results as the other students did on their small globes. 

Deny it as much as you like, but the simple fact is that the math involved only works consistently on a sphere. 

[Southernhemispere]

And, if the calculation of sun height using these figures is so questionable, is the size of the earth any more reliable?

The article I link describes the method used. It shows that the classic experiments which are often used to show that Round Earth has been "proven" can be reinterpreted on a flat one.

But relying on the Ancient Greeks makes the entire matter, of course, unreliable. For one thing this experiment was conducted before the invention of mechanical clocks, so how did Eratosthenes know what the sun was doing simultaneously at the same point in time between two 500-distant mile locations? The standard narrative that he could have computed any Round Earth figures is questionable at best.

I asked you for the distance from the north pole to the equator for the official flat earth model, and you failed miserably because a) There is no official FE distance b) There is no official FE map c) There will never, ever, be a workable FE model which explains sunlight hours in the Southern Hemisphere d) FE'ers blindly follow what they can find on the internet without questioning the validity of consequences of what they just regurgitate.

To add to the FE map problems I mentioned in the earlier post, with the Southern Hemisphere 4 times larger than the Northern Hemisphere based on any measurement from the North Pole to the equator, plus the fact that the sun would be moving over it at up to twice the speed it moves when at its slowest in June, it still seems to heat the Southern places pretty well. eg Australia where mid-summer temperatures often touch 50 degrees centigrade. Once again the FE falls flat!

[rabinoz]

And, if the calculation of sun height using these figures is so questionable, is the size of the earth any more reliable?

The article I link describes the method used. It shows that the classic experiments which are often used to show that Round Earth has been "proven" can be reinterpreted on a flat one.

But relying on the Ancient Greeks makes the entire matter, of course, unreliable. For one thing this experiment was conducted before the invention of mechanical clocks, so how did Eratosthenes know what the sun was doing simultaneously at the same point in time between two 500-distant mile locations? The standard narrative that he could have computed any Round Earth figures is questionable at best.

You claim that "It shows that the classic experiments which are often used to show that Round Earth has been "proven" can be reinterpreted on a flat one."

The section in the Wiki says:

Erathostenes on Diameter
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7°12' south of zenith at the other city.

But even in that post I showed that if you calculate the sun's height for those figures you get 3,959 Nm or 4,556 statute miles!

If you ignore the values in "the Wiki" and use these more accurate for the angle and distances you get a latitude difference and 7.11° and the distance between them is 524 statute miles, making the sun's height 4201 statute miles.

BUT, "the Wiki" claims that the sun's height is 3,000 miles (presumably based on Voliva's estimate).

And in this post: Re: Astronomy debunk: The sun is clearly moving away
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2016, 06:52:12 AM » That shows, depending on the latitude used in the "Voliva method", the calculation of sun's height varies greatly.

Latitude	Ground Distance	Sun Elev	Sun Height
30.0°	2,071 miles	60.0°	3,587 miles
45.0°	3,107 miles	45.0°	3,107 miles
60.0°	4,142 miles	30.0°	2,392 miles
75.0°	5,178 miles	15.0°	1,387 miles

Just face it. The height you get for the sun using the "Voliva method" depends entirely on how your long your baseline is!

So, just how high is your sun, 4,556, 4,201, 3,587, 3,107, 2,392 or 1,387 miles? take your pick!

Just note that the distances and angles used here are quite consistent with those given in your Wiki and with those you might get from Google maps or Google Earth.

BUT, if you apply the same figures to the globe, you do get quite consistent results for a far distant sun, actually an infinite distance if we use precisely the values taken from the Wiki!

[Tom Bishop]

How do you know where the sun was seen at those latitudes?

[TotesNotReptilian]

How do you know where the sun was seen at those latitudes?

Tom, perhaps you can do something constructive for once. Give him some locations and distances that YOU know are correct. Perhaps some places you have been. I'm sure he (or several others on this forum) would be happy to do the calculations for locations of your choosing.

Or, just continue to call anything and everything that contradicts your model fake/wrong, despite how ridiculously unlikely that is. I suspect you will choose this option.

[markjo]

How do you know where the sun was seen at those latitudes?

How do you know that the sun is seen at an angle of 45 degrees at an latitude of 45 degrees at local noon on the day of the equinox?  It seems to be fairly important to FET, so it seems that you should want to verify that premise for yourself before asserting it as fact.  You may also want to double check the distance from the equator to the 45 degrees latitude line, just to be sure that the filthy RE cartographers aren't lying to you.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, perhaps you can do something constructive for once. Give him some locations and distances that YOU know are correct. Perhaps some places you have been. I'm sure he (or several others on this forum) would be happy to do the calculations for locations of your choosing.

How would he know that the calculations meet reality?

How do you know where the sun was seen at those latitudes?

How do you know that the sun is seen at an angle of 45 degrees at an latitude of 45 degrees at local noon on the day of the equinox?  It seems to be fairly important to FET, so it seems that you should want to verify that premise for yourself before asserting it as fact.  You may also want to double check the distance from the equator to the 45 degrees latitude line, just to be sure that the filthy RE cartographers aren't lying to you.

We never collected those values, they are used in determining the distance to the sun under RET. Due to low quality RE science, they may very well be wrong. The values are only used for the purpose of showing that the sun's height can be recalculated under the assumption of a Flat Earth.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Tom, perhaps you can do something constructive for once. Give him some locations and distances that YOU know are correct. Perhaps some places you have been. I'm sure he (or several others on this forum) would be happy to do the calculations for locations of your choosing.

How would he know that the calculations meet reality?

You give him data that you know is correct. He confirms that the data agrees with google maps. He does calculations. If the calculations result in different heights of the sun, then the model is probably wrong.

[markjo]

Tom, perhaps you can do something constructive for once. Give him some locations and distances that YOU know are correct. Perhaps some places you have been. I'm sure he (or several others on this forum) would be happy to do the calculations for locations of your choosing.

How would he know that the calculations meet reality?

How do you know where the sun was seen at those latitudes?

How do you know that the sun is seen at an angle of 45 degrees at an latitude of 45 degrees at local noon on the day of the equinox?  It seems to be fairly important to FET, so it seems that you should want to verify that premise for yourself before asserting it as fact.  You may also want to double check the distance from the equator to the 45 degrees latitude line, just to be sure that the filthy RE cartographers aren't lying to you.

We never collected those values, they are used in determining the distance to the sun under RET.

Umm...  No.

Due to low quality RE science, they may very well be wrong. The values are only used for the purpose of showing that the sun's height can be recalculated under the assumption of a Flat Earth.

Now if only those calculations could produce consistent results from different latitudes.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, perhaps you can do something constructive for once. Give him some locations and distances that YOU know are correct. Perhaps some places you have been. I'm sure he (or several others on this forum) would be happy to do the calculations for locations of your choosing.

How would he know that the calculations meet reality?

You give him data that you know is correct. He confirms that the data agrees with google maps. He does calculations. If the calculations result in different heights of the sun, then the model is probably wrong.

How does he confirm the position the sun appears at in the sky in different locations through google maps?

Now if only those calculations could produce consistent results from different latitudes.

Which of your RET studies shows such results?

[rabinoz]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. We are constantly told to look in "the Wiki" and there we find:

Latitude
To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.

This would make the North Pole to Equator on FE 90 x 69.5 miles = 6,255 miles.

Napolean, however, got in on the act and defined the metre as (Distance from North Pole to Equator)/10,000,000.,
making the North Pole to Equator distance 10,000 km, or 6,214 miles.

So "the Wiki" is not far off, but it would be better if it had one degree per 69.0 miles instead of "one degree per 69.5 miles.

This is also closer the figure for the diameter given in "the Wiki".

The Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world;