...words, words, words...
At this point we have created an alternative model to the globe model and then there are 2 possibilities:
- we find a difference between both models and derive a test to see which one is correct
- both models are equivalent
...words, words, words...
Troolon,
I'd love it if you addressed what I've written in this discussion. I appreciate the replies to me by Clyde Frog and Pete, but my original comments and thoughts were all directed at you and what you've said, and I'm not entirely certain I've NOT simply been talking past Clyde Frog and Pete (and they've been talking past me in turn).
I have read your troolon.com page twice now, and I still can't see "where" it addresses the specific argument I made. No need for you to go back in this thread and re-read, I can succinctly repeat it here (and you'll see why I included your specific quote above).
Under your section headlined "Azimuthal transformation with the earth as origin" you have a sentence that reads:
"Around 6371km will be an azimuthal projection of earth (a flat earth)."
What does this sentence mean, exactly? I'm not sure I actually grasp what is happening in the transformation of the globe to a cylinder. The accepted radius of the earth is 6371km. Are you saying that the radius of the cylinder is that same distance of 6371 and therefore, the diameter of the "earth" (at height 0) is twice that distance, measuring 12,742km ?
If that's what you meant, then you haven't discovered an azimuthal FE model that works.
Look more carefully at the monopole FE model. If the earth indeed were shaped like a great disc, with Antarctica as a giant circle around the circumference, you'll see such a shape for earth requires a diameter (on that flat circle) of 25,484km. That means the radius for your cylinder concept would be 12,742km. And not 6371km, as you state.
Am I making sense? Or am I missing something?