The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Earthman on November 07, 2018, 10:50:41 PM
-
Globe believers have an established curvature chart for an Earth with a 3959 Mile radius. It dictates how much curvature there should be over land and water.
Are there any Globe believers here who can calculate how much curvature should be over Australia using their own charts? And can they also prove Australia does in fact have the curvature as dictated by comparing it to the actual surface shape, and show us how they came to that conclusion?
Applying the Earth curvature Chart to our Earth’s landmass is a simple and easy way to prove right here and now if Earth is indeed a ball. The debate would be over.
Can they do it? Let see.
Australia is roughly 2400 miles in width. Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay Western Australia to Sunshine Coast, Australia is 2406 miles. See picture below.
How much curvature should Australia have? How much does it really have? How did you come to this conclusion? Please include all methods.
We will be waiting…
Thanks in advance,
-
Lay off the antagonizing terms for the RE folks. Warned.
-
Australia is roughly 2400 miles in width. Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay Western Australia to Sunshine Coast, Australia is 2406 miles.
Where did you get this distance from?
Think about it, maybe this will answer your questions.
-
Globe believers have an established curvature chart for an Earth with a 3959 Mile radius. It dictates how much curvature there should be over land and water.
Are there any Globe believers here who can calculate how much curvature should be over Australia using their own charts? And can they also prove Australia does in fact have the curvature as dictated and show us how they came to that conclusion?
Applying the Earth curvature Chart to our Earth’s landmass is a simple and easy way to prove right here and now if Earth is indeed a ball. The debate would be over.
Can they do it? Let see.
Australia is roughly 2400 miles in width. Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay Western Australia to Sunshine Coast, Australia is 2406 miles. See picture below.
How much curvature should Australia have? How much does it really have? How did you come to this conclusion? Please include all methods.
We will be waiting…
Thanks in advance,
I'd be more than willing to respond, but I don't think this is right forum. How about posing this in Theory or Investigation?
-
Yes, when I go to sea all our charts are based upon the earth being a globe. We can travel halfway around the earth with no street signs or direction posts anywhere and arrive at our destination each and every time. When I'm on land then I use flat earth charts. I don't get lost there either, but I can usually follow road and street signs.
-
Australia is roughly 2400 miles in width. Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay Western Australia to Sunshine Coast, Australia is 2406 miles.
Where did you get this distance from?
Think about it, maybe this will answer your questions.
The information came from an online distance calculator for a Globe Earth.
-
You have about 35 degrees of the globe, that means that you would need a tower of about 190-191 miles at each side of Australia to have a clear line of sight between the towers (assuming no buildings or mountains near the center of curvature) . The horizon would be about 17 to 18 degrees below level. The tops of the towers would be about 2868 miles away from each other All my calculations are classified (RE) calculations, access limited.
-
Are there others here who would like to chime in with actually proof Australia’s landmass does indeed match the established curvature charts for a Earth with a 3959 mile radius?
-
You have about 35 degrees of the globe, that means that you would need a tower of about 190-191 miles at each side of Australia to have a clear line of sight between the towers (assuming no buildings or mountains near the center of curvature) . The horizon would be about 17 to 18 degrees below level. The tops of the towers would be about 2868 miles away from each other All my calculations are classified (RE) calculations, access limited.
Thanks for your input.
-
Australia is roughly 2400 miles in width. Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay Western Australia to Sunshine Coast, Australia is 2406 miles.
Where did you get this distance from?
Think about it, maybe this will answer your questions.
The information came from an online distance calculator for a Globe Earth.
The Globe earth distance calculator showed also a route between these two points.
Is it straight line or an arc? That's the projected view from above.
More interesting would be the "side view": Is this a straight line or an arc?
What is the hight of points part of this arc/line above mean sea level?
More:
What is the definition in a Globe Earth model of: "vertical" (Hint: plumb line), "horizontal" and "level"?
What are the plumb lines at the start and end point? Are those plumb lines parallel?
What are the "horizontal" planes at the start and end point? Are those planes parallel or even the same?
What is "mean sea level" on a globe? A plane or is it curved?
-
The biggest problem with doing anything with a globe earth is that you are essentially working in 3 dimensions. Any flat earth calculations are easy because it's all on a flat plane. Spherical calculations require more math. I was bit by that fact years ago when I started learning celestial navigation. At that time I didn't have anything on spherical trigonometry but was able to borrow a math text book that had a section on that subject. It takes a while for everything to make some sense. I don't blame the flat earth advocates. Their ideas make things easier. Unfortunately, if we tried doing basic trigonometry while working out navigation problems at sea King Neptune would have gotten us a long time ago. Any flat earth advocates want to meet the King?
-
Are there others here who would like to chime in with actually proof Australia’s landmass does indeed match the established curvature charts for a Earth with a 3959 mile radius?
You show how you derived your "curvature" first thank you!
-
Australia is roughly 2400 miles in width. Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay Western Australia to Sunshine Coast, Australia is 2406 miles.
Where did you get this distance from?
Think about it, maybe this will answer your questions.
The information came from an online distance calculator for a Globe Earth.
The Globe earth distance calculator showed also a route between these two points.
Is it straight line or an arc? That's the projected view from above.
More interesting would be the "side view": Is this a straight line or an arc?
What is the hight of points part of this arc/line above mean sea level?
More:
What is the definition in a Globe Earth model of: "vertical" (Hint: plumb line), "horizontal" and "level"?
What are the plumb lines at the start and end point? Are those plumb lines parallel?
What are the "horizontal" planes at the start and end point? Are those planes parallel or even the same?
What is "mean sea level" on a globe? A plane or is it curved?
How you chose to come up with the facts to prove Australia has spherical curvature as dictated is not my concern. I just want to see the facts and see us how you came to that conclusion.
I believe this a valid and simple question and the task is not complicated.
-
I went from Coral Bay 23-08-34S / 113-46-05E to the Point Cartwright Light house near Buddina 26-40-46S / 153-08-18E. The total great circle distance was about 2470 miles with the midpoint at about 26-15-16S / 133-09-33E. The starting and ending points are near sea level, give or take what the tides might be. All three points (start, end, center) are all relatively close to the same distance from the earths center at 3959 miles away, give or take the topography of the land near the center. If you draw a straight line thru the earths diameter circle between the starting point and ending point it will be at about 191 miles below the center position. To do it another way, if you constructed towers at the starting and ending points and drew a straight line between the towers (each 194 miles high) the line would just graze the surface of the earth near the center point. The towers had to be just a bit taller because they would have to be at an angle of a little less than 18 degrees relative to the vertical at the center. However both towers would be perfectly vertical and pointing toward the earths center at each end. All the calculations are classified, believe them if you dare.
-
I went from Coral Bay 23-08-34S / 113-46-05E to the Point Cartwright Light house near Buddina 26-40-46S / 153-08-18E. The total great circle distance was about 2470 miles with the midpoint at about 26-15-16S / 133-09-33E. The starting and ending points are near sea level, give or take what the tides might be. All three points (start, end, center) are all relatively close to the same distance from the earths center at 3959 miles away, give or take the topography of the land near the center. If you draw a straight line thru the earths diameter circle between the starting point and ending point it will be at about 191 miles below the center position. To do it another way, if you constructed towers at the starting and ending points and drew a straight line between the towers (each 194 miles high) the line would just graze the surface of the earth near the center point. The towers had to be just a bit taller because they would have to be at an angle of a little less than 18 degrees relative to the vertical at the center. However both towers would be perfectly vertical and pointing toward the earths center at each end. All the calculations are classified, believe them if you dare.
So visually, something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/grfUfGs.jpg?1)
-
Yes, the diagram is essentially what my 'back of the envelope' calculations shows. The math seems to be correct.
-
I went from Coral Bay 23-08-34S / 113-46-05E to the Point Cartwright Light house near Buddina 26-40-46S / 153-08-18E. The total great circle distance was about 2470 miles with the midpoint at about 26-15-16S / 133-09-33E. The starting and ending points are near sea level, give or take what the tides might be. All three points (start, end, center) are all relatively close to the same distance from the earths center at 3959 miles away, give or take the topography of the land near the center. If you draw a straight line thru the earths diameter circle between the starting point and ending point it will be at about 191 miles below the center position. To do it another way, if you constructed towers at the starting and ending points and drew a straight line between the towers (each 194 miles high) the line would just graze the surface of the earth near the center point. The towers had to be just a bit taller because they would have to be at an angle of a little less than 18 degrees relative to the vertical at the center. However both towers would be perfectly vertical and pointing toward the earths center at each end. All the calculations are classified, believe them if you dare.
So visually, something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/grfUfGs.jpg?1)
Can you prove Australia does have the 191 miles of curvature (at center) by comparing it to the actual surface shape of Australia, and show us how you came to that conclusion?
-
To test what vertical actually is, consider a thought experiment. You all know about the leaning tower of Pisa in Italy. Location is at 43-43-23N and 10-23-43E. Assume that it leans by 4 degrees to the South (180 degrees). Now assume that you could hire an alien contractor who had an anti-gravity machine that could pick the leaning tower up an move it. During the moving process the tower would remain pointing in an absolute fixed direction in space. Could the tower be moved to another location that would be perfectly vertical on the earth?
-
Another approach: The Sun
Assuming Sun rays are parallel all over the globe, lets see how high the Sun is above the horizon (local horizontal plane) --> the elevation value at timeanddate.com
seen at the start and end point.
I found Shark Bay (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@8163227?month=12&year=2018)
and
Sunshine Coast (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/australia/sunshine-coast?month=12&year=2018)
I take Dec/22/2018 - solstice day, as the Sun's path is nearest to these two points.
I take Shark Bay local time 08:55h, as Sun's azimuth then is 99°, which fits with the Great Circle course to Sunshine Coast.
99° would be the direction you have to look, to see (theoretical, it's much to far) Sunshine Coast from Shark Bay.
Sunshine Coast local time is then 10:55h according time zones.
Sun Data at Dec/22/2018 08:55h Shark Bay local Time:
Shark Bay (08:55h): Azi. 99° Elevation 43°
Sunshine Coast (10:55h): Azi. 78° Elevation 78°
The difference in elevation of the Sun at the same time is 35°
That's what the local horizontal planes at Shark Bay and Sunshine Coast are tilted against each other.
So starting at Shark Bay you would have to curve down for 35° on your way to Sunshine Coast, which also is the result in RonJ's calculations.
-
I am not looking for assumptions or thought experiments. I am looking for detailed facts that prove Australia has the curvature.
The sum of 194 miles of curvature has been posted.
Can you prove Australia does have the 191 miles of curvature (at center) by comparing it to the actual surface shape of Australia, and show us how you came to that conclusion?
-
All you would need would be to spend about $100,000 for a couple of Theodolites. Then you could make a complete geodetic survey of Australia. Of course you would have to understand the theory of the equipment and how it makes the measurements of the actual curvature of the earth. You could also look up the survey data on line that the government does publish. Since you probably don't trust the government you would be better to do your own research on the project so you would be completely satisfied with the result. Probably there are topographic maps also available for a price if you are so inclined. As for me, I'm totally satisfied to make the rough calculations and know that they are correct.
-
I am not looking for assumptions or thought experiments. I am looking for detailed facts that prove Australia has the curvature.
The sum of 194 miles of curvature has been posted.
Can you prove Australia does have the 191 miles of curvature (at center) by comparing it to the actual surface shape of Australia, and show us how you came to that conclusion?
You appear to be under the mistaken assumption that the height at the center of Australia should be 191 miles or some such. Height is measured as distance above sea level. Sea level also gains that 191 miles at the center of Australia. What exactly do you expect to be presented with? No, Australia doesn't have a height of 191 miles at it's center. That's silly, and foolish to think a topography map would show this. Is there something else you're attempting to drive at, or are you attacking a strawman?
-
Go back and look at reply #16 from Earthman. I will confess that the concept of the round earth is a bit hard to visualize in terms that you can easily see. On the diagram in reply 16 notice the towers at each end. Notice that if they were moved a couple thousand miles so they were side by side they would not be parallel. The main concept that is critical to realize is that vertical on the earths surface means that line that points towards the center of the earth. If you had two lines separated by a couple of thousand miles, the angle between them would be about 35 degrees. If you could actually dig a tunnel under Australia that connected to the ocean on each side the water would not have any tendency to flow because the sea levels would be the same at both ends. The top of the tunnel would be about 190 miles below the surface in the center, give or take the heights of any mountains in the area. Again, I know that this is difficult to visualize in real life. The other concept to internalize is that water doesn't seek it's own level, but does seek the center of gravity on the earth. Each drop of water seeks the center of gravity in the area where it happens to be at the time. This assumes that there is no other forces on the drop of water such as a wind or tidal current for an example. If this were not the case then you might expect that there would be a strong current in the Suez Canal since this connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. I have personally been thru the Suez Canal countless times and can assure you that any currents are just due to things like unequal rains between the two seas and other minor factors like that. Since each drop of water individually seeks the center of gravity on the earth no matter where it happens to be you could see how the oceans could actually gently curve. Yes, I admit that this effect is difficult to see because of numerous atmospheric effects. Personally, I look at it this way, I went to sea for a living for the last 20 years. Every map and instrument we have aboard the ship is based upon the earth being mostly spherical. All our training with celestial navigation assumes that the earth is a sphere. I have crossed just about all the oceans in the world over this period of time and haven't got lost even once. This would not be possible if all the theory and practice we learned didn't work. What more proof of the concept would you need? I bet my life on the round earth and King Neptune hasn't gotten me yet.
-
Stack was the one who agreed with RonJ of 191 miles of curvature.
Tower A is on the east coast and set at sea level and tower B is on the west coast and set at sea level. According to Stack and Ronj, the center of Australia is 191 miles above the base of the towers A and B.
Stack provided the following conclusion.
(https://i.imgur.com/grfUfGs.jpg?1)
On a Globe Earth, the center point of Australia would actually be 191 miles above sea level of towers A and B. And the elevation of Marla, Australia (near central Australia) would be 1076’ above Earth’s circular curve as dedicated. The highest point above the east and west coast waters at center would be 191 miles plus 1076 feet.
In reality, in real life, tower A is on the east coast and set at sea level and tower B is on the west coast and set at sea level. According to elevation charts and topographical maps the highest point near center Australia that’s above the base of towers of A and B is only 1076 feet and not 191 plus miles
Australia does not belong to a Globe Earth. No land mass on this Earth has surface measurements of a sphere. Our Earth has horizontal oceans with landmasses sticking up out of the water.
If Earth were a Ball, elevation points would have to be established above and with Earth’s circular curve at different points for engineering purposes. The worlds languages would include a meaning for a curved horizon, like Curvizon. Our would world be much different.
I know many will not agree, but the conclusion is Globe Earth believers cannot prove Earth's landmass has any curvature because topographical maps and engineering will prove them wrong every day.
-
There would be no reason to have anything but a flat horizon even on a spherical earth. All I ever saw at sea was a flat horizon. That argument is irrelevant. You can easily show that the earth is curved by constructing two towers. Both towers must be exactly vertical. That is, both towers have to be pointed at the center of the earth. You can actually do that with a free swinging plum bob, but it's a bit more difficult because it can be blown around by the wind. Now if these two towers are separated by a bit of distance I can assure by that they wouldn't be parallel. There would be a small angle between them. The distance between the bottom of the towers would be a little shorter than the distance between the top of the towers. If the two towers are only separated by a mile or so, the difference would be in inches. I confess, it would be hard to get an accurate measurement because the size of the earth is large. Think about this; take a swimming pool and then as accurately as you can measure its depth at some fixed point. Then pour in a glass of water. You must admit that the water level has risen by the contents of the glass of water, but could you measure the difference? I rather doubt it. You could put the whole contents of the pool into the sea and the difference would be even smaller. With modern technology the characteristics of the spherical earth are known down to a gnat's ass. Even the GPS in my iPhone is accurate to within 10 feet or so. All that technology is based on the earth being a sphere. You can't argue with the fact that the system just works. Throw all the crazy ideas out the window, get in your car, turn on the GPS, and a voice will guide you to your destination every time. I don't know what more proof you need.
-
To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:
(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)
-
To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:
I am sorry, there is nothing you can do or say that would add a 191 mile high rugged earth dome over Australia. It's not possible. You can't do it to any land mass. Not even the USA. See pic below.
All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.
-
I can see that you don't understand. I'm NOT aren't trying to put a 191 mile dome over Australia. It's just a way of doing a calculation of the earth's curvature. You really can't see or feel the curvature in your everyday life. I fully agree with that. However, again, you couldn't feel the increase in the water depth of a swimming pool if you put a glass of water into it either. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a change in water depth, because you know for a fact that there was, but you still can't feel it. Some things you just can't feel from common everyday experience, but that doesn't mean that they aren't true. The base of the towers of the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco are about 2 inches narrower than at the top. I know, it's not a big deal, but it still has to be true because of the curvature of the earth. Humans are so small and the earth is so large, on a relative basis. You probably don't understand just how you can hear someone talking on the radio in your car, but you know that they do, so you know the technology does work. The earth's curvature is like that as well. It's always there even if you can't feel it.
-
I can see that you don't understand. I'm NOT aren't trying to put a 191 mile dome over Australia. It's just a way of doing a calculation of the earth's curvature. You really can't see or feel the curvature in your everyday life. I fully agree with that. However, again, you couldn't feel the increase in the water depth of a swimming pool if you put a glass of water into it either. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a change in water depth, because you know for a fact that there was, but you still can't feel it. Some things you just can't feel from common everyday experience, but that doesn't mean that they aren't true. The base of the towers of the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco are about 2 inches narrower than at the top. I know, it's not a big deal, but it still has to be true because of the curvature of the earth. Humans are so small and the earth is so large, on a relative basis. You probably don't understand just how you can hear someone talking on the radio in your car, but you know that they do, so you know the technology does work. The earth's curvature is like that as well. It's always there even if you can't feel it.
Thank you for your input!
-
To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:
I am sorry, there is nothing you can do or say that would add a 191 mile high rugged earth dome over Australia. It's not possible. You can't do it to any land mass. Not even the USA. See pic below.
All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.
I think where you're getting tripped up is that in RE theory sea level is not a horizontal plane just like any landmass is not a horizontal plane, both are part of the same sphere. Does that make sense?
-
To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:
I am sorry, there is nothing you can do or say that would add a 191 mile high rugged earth dome over Australia. It's not possible. You can't do it to any land mass. Not even the USA. See pic below.
All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.
I think where you're getting tripped up is that in RE theory sea level is not a horizontal plane just like any landmass is not a horizontal plane, both are part of the same sphere. Does that make sense?
Oh, I know what the RE theory is, it's just like gravity it can't be proven. No trip up here.
Thanks for your input.
-
To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:
I am sorry, there is nothing you can do or say that would add a 191 mile high rugged earth dome over Australia. It's not possible. You can't do it to any land mass. Not even the USA. See pic below.
All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.
I think where you're getting tripped up is that in RE theory sea level is not a horizontal plane just like any landmass is not a horizontal plane, both are part of the same sphere. Does that make sense?
Oh, I know what the RE theory is, it's just like gravity it can't be proven. No trip up here.
Thanks for your input.
The path of the sun and measured distances prove a round earth, as you know.
-
All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.
I think you should see how elevation and sea level are determined. It's far more complex than you let on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4
-
Maps:
Are there any maps based on a flat Earth? No, not a single one. Even those mono-polar or bi-polar "models" presented by flat earthers are obviously nothing else than projections of a globe earth.
All maps are based on a spheroid. Most have spherical coordinates on them, others have descriptions how to translate coordinates to spherical ones. Some need small corrections/shifts to match the WGS84 ellipsoid used with GPS, as these are referenced to another ellipsoid, which locally fits better than WGS84 (e.g. Croatia charts are based on the Bessel ellipsoid).
Each major countries have national mapping services. There are, I don't know how many, other commercial mapping services. There is a crowd workers project OpenStreetMap with more than 1,000,000 contributors and various donators of greater data chunks, to build a global database. All this fits together with no issues. I never heard of significant inconsistencies between charts of different mapping services. Even maps created a few centuries ago - with allowance of some inaccuracies, due to their limited resources - match modern maps.
Mapping services or others derive myriads of printed and electronic maps from their base data, verified by odometers and compasses in cars/ships/airplanes by millions of users each and every day.
Directions and distances are derived from this data by using formulas of spherical trigonometry based on a oblate spheroid with mean radius of 6371km, either "realtime" with electronic charts or "offline" - which gives the map scale and projection - on printed charts.
-
On my last ship we used WGS84 and British Admiralty charts. We liked to stick with the WGS84 charts but as I recall there were some random areas where you needed to have an 'Admiralty' chart. Every ship is required by international regulations to carry certain charts. The chart list depended upon where our expected area of operation might be. It was strange sometimes because we might have had a WGS84 chart for a larger general area but needed a 'Admiralty' chart for the approach to a particular port. It really didn't matter because the chart areas overlapped a bit and you could seamlessly go from one chart to the next. We had a large chart table with drawers below that were maybe 6 feet wide and 8 inches tall. That way the large charts could lay flat and didn't have to be folded and could be pulled out and placed on the chart table easily. The navigation officer could then lay his instruments on the chart and draw the necessary lines. All the paper stuff is still required by international regulations, I believe, but we also had electronic charts. The ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System) now is also a requirement. I downloaded and updated all our electronic charts on a weekly basis. The navigational officer had to hand update the paper charts too, but he got overtime for that. Take a quick look at the history of Gerardus Mercator and you can appreciate how modern charts got their start 100s years ago. Mercator was willing to bet his very life that his view of the earth was the correct one. Sailors operating on the high seas have been verifying that view everyday since.
-
All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.
I think you should see how elevation and sea level are determined. It's far more complex than you let on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4
No one can prove any landmass has the surface curvature as dictated by a 3959 mile radius. If they have it would have been posted it by now.
-
The English language contains words that are used to scientifically describe the surface of our oceans. Words with meanings of curvature are not chosen.
Science describes the surface of the oceans as horizontal for an important reason. The truth about the shape of Earths surface waters is needed for engineering purposes, otherwise nothing would work right. But any one is welcome to believe it is round.
Because the ocean is one continuous body of water, its surface tends to seek the same level throughout the world. However, winds, currents, river discharges, and variations in gravity and temperature prevent the sea surface from being truly level. Source National Geographic -
lev·el
[ˈlevəl]
NOUN
a horizontal plane or line with respect to the distance above or below a given point.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/sea-level/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/sea-level/)
-
Yes, actually you can 'prove' it. It just depends on what YOU would consider as proof. For some you actually have to directly see something with your own eyes to believe it. That procedure is fraught with difficulties. There are plenty of YouTube videos that can explain curvature, if you choose to believe it. Many will say those video must be fake. Sometimes you can't even believe what you actually see with your own eyes. Think that's wrong? Just visit a good magician and he will 'school' you. Personally, I believe in math and science. Theories were developed and then tested. Is everything perfect? No. The theory that has actually worked for me in my everyday working life has been that the earth is an oblate spheroid. If I had a land job and drove to work everyday and never had any other view except the land locked one, I could believe in a flat earth view myself. Really, it wouldn't matter much anyway. However, these days, much of the everyday goods you consume are produced in Asia. That can be good or bad, but that's another subject. Those goods largely arrive in the USA via container ship. These ships are just glorified trucks that travel on the earth's oceans. Soon these will probably be autonomous and won't have a human crew aboard. At the present time there are human crews aboard. The whole system is set up with the globe earth as the underlying principles. Many of us spend 4 or 5 years at a merchant marine academy to learn the science behind getting from point A to point B on the globe. Each and every thing is based upon the globe earth paradigm. After we graduate we go to work on a ship and turn all that theory into practice. It all seems to work. That's why I believe. Do I really need further proof? No. What kind of proof do YOU need?
-
Yes, actually you can 'prove' it. It just depends on what YOU would consider as proof. For some you actually have to directly see something with your own eyes to believe it. That procedure is fraught with difficulties. There are plenty of YouTube videos that can explain curvature, if you choose to believe it. Many will say those video must be fake. Sometimes you can't even believe what you actually see with your own eyes. Think that's wrong? Just visit a good magician and he will 'school' you. Personally, I believe in math and science. Theories were developed and then tested. Is everything perfect? No. The theory that has actually worked for me in my everyday working life has been that the earth is an oblate spheroid. If I had a land job and drove to work everyday and never had any other view except the land locked one, I could believe in a flat earth view myself. Really, it wouldn't matter much anyway. However, these days, much of the everyday goods you consume are produced in Asia. That can be good or bad, but that's another subject. Those goods largely arrive in the USA via container ship. These ships are just glorified trucks that travel on the earth's oceans. Soon these will probably be autonomous and won't have a human crew aboard. At the present time there are human crews aboard. The whole system is set up with the globe earth as the underlying principles. Many of us spend 4 or 5 years at a merchant marine academy to learn the science behind getting from point A to point B on the globe. Each and every thing is based upon the globe earth paradigm. After we graduate we go to work on a ship and turn all that theory into practice. It all seems to work. That's why I believe. Do I really need further proof? No. What kind of proof do YOU need?
Please allow me to rephrase my statement.
No one can mathematically prove any landmass has the surface curvature as dictated by a 3959 mile radius. If they could or have, it would have been posted by now.
The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.
-
The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.
How so?
-
Yes, actually you can 'prove' it. It just depends on what YOU would consider as proof. For some you actually have to directly see something with your own eyes to believe it. That procedure is fraught with difficulties. There are plenty of YouTube videos that can explain curvature, if you choose to believe it. Many will say those video must be fake. Sometimes you can't even believe what you actually see with your own eyes. Think that's wrong? Just visit a good magician and he will 'school' you. Personally, I believe in math and science. Theories were developed and then tested. Is everything perfect? No. The theory that has actually worked for me in my everyday working life has been that the earth is an oblate spheroid. If I had a land job and drove to work everyday and never had any other view except the land locked one, I could believe in a flat earth view myself. Really, it wouldn't matter much anyway. However, these days, much of the everyday goods you consume are produced in Asia. That can be good or bad, but that's another subject. Those goods largely arrive in the USA via container ship. These ships are just glorified trucks that travel on the earth's oceans. Soon these will probably be autonomous and won't have a human crew aboard. At the present time there are human crews aboard. The whole system is set up with the globe earth as the underlying principles. Many of us spend 4 or 5 years at a merchant marine academy to learn the science behind getting from point A to point B on the globe. Each and every thing is based upon the globe earth paradigm. After we graduate we go to work on a ship and turn all that theory into practice. It all seems to work. That's why I believe. Do I really need further proof? No. What kind of proof do YOU need?
Please allow me to rephrase my statement.
No one can mathematically prove any landmass has the surface curvature as dictated by a 3959 mile radius. If they could or have, it would have been posted by now.
The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.
Measure the angle of the sun. Sorted.
-
Mathematically it's a straightforward path to show that the earth has curvature over a landmass. It would be easy if you understood the works of Nathaniel Bowditch and had a Sextant, accurate clock and a nautical almanac. You can use a sextant inland. I've personally done it in the Midwest where I live when I'm not at sea. There is a YouTube video that shows the procedure. When using this procedure you have to convince yourself that the only way it will work is by using spherical trigonometry on a globe earth. Would it theoretically work on a flat earth? Maybe, but I don't know of ANY accurate charts or ANY nautical almanacs that were made using the flat earth paradigm. It really wouldn't be necessary because the existing procedures work and have for 100's of years. Will you directly measure the curvature of the earth? No, you won't. The curvature of the earth is only a byproduct of the mathematical calculations you make. If you changed the known radius of the earth then you wouldn't get an accurate answer. The bottom line is this; you use the radius of the curvature of the earth and some spherical trigonometry to arrive at your position. If you do that at a known position and you get that same position back after making your measurements and calculations using spherical trigonometry and the known radius figure of the earth, you have just proved that the radius is what you expected it to be. If you don't believe that, just try another radius figure and see what happens. You are looking at a curvature of only 8 inches in a mile. It's really hard to directly observe. I was out driving this afternoon and the earth really didn't look flat or round. The highway just went up & down by 100s of feet over 4 or 5 miles. There is no way I could tell whether the earth was flat or round. If you believe in science and math you can do the experiments and convince yourself. The hardest thing I had to do, years ago, was to figure out how the sextant can actually measure your position on the earth. There is a theory and method to that madness that was worked up by Bowditch and those methods are still used today. There is a couple hour YouTube video on celestial navigation that that I wish I had when I was starting. I use H.H. Dutton's text book and taught myself, tried it on a sailboat, and it works. I didn't get lost.
-
Please allow me to rephrase my statement.
No one can mathematically prove any landmass has the surface curvature as dictated by a 3959 mile radius. If they could or have, it would have been posted by now.
The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.
Measure the angle of the sun. Sorted.
You are sure welcome to start another topic with that issue. However, what ever results you come up with will not prove Earth's land masses have the curvature as dictated by a Earth with a 3959 mile radius nor will is add any.
Both elevation and curvature or lack thereof can be established and or verified in the same manner with two reverence points of “Sea Level”. The fact that central Australia’s highest point is less than 1300’ proves it does not have the curvature RE claim for a Earth with a 3959 mile radius. Simple math and established landmass elevations and a RE curvature chart prove the shape of our Earth is not what we all have been taught.
-
Please allow me to rephrase my statement.
No one can mathematically prove any landmass has the surface curvature as dictated by a 3959 mile radius. If they could or have, it would have been posted by now.
The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.
Measure the angle of the sun. Sorted.
You sure welcome to start another topic with that issue. However, what ever results you come up with will not prove Earth's land masses have the curvature as dictated by a Earth with a 3959 mile radius nor will is add any.
Both elevation and curvature or lack thereof can be established and or verified in the same manner with two reverence points of “Sea Level”. The fact that central Australia’s highest point is less than 1300’ proves it does not have the curvature RE claim for a Earth with a 3959 mile radius. Simple math and established elevation and a RE curvature chart prove the shape of or Earth is not what we all have been taught.
Seems like you keep mixing FET with RET. But in both cases the highest point in Australia between the coasts is 1300 feet above sea level. It's almost like you think, as I think RonJ mentioned, that RET puts a curved dome over landmasses. I honestly don't understand what you keep going on about.
-
Please allow me to rephrase my statement.
No one can mathematically prove any landmass has the surface curvature as dictated by a 3959 mile radius. If they could or have, it would have been posted by now.
The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.
Measure the angle of the sun. Sorted.
You sure welcome to start another topic with that issue. However, what ever results you come up with will not prove Earth's land masses have the curvature as dictated by a Earth with a 3959 mile radius nor will is add any.
Both elevation and curvature or lack thereof can be established and or verified in the same manner with two reverence points of “Sea Level”. The fact that central Australia’s highest point is less than 1300’ proves it does not have the curvature RE claim for a Earth with a 3959 mile radius. Simple math and established elevation and a RE curvature chart prove the shape of or Earth is not what we all have been taught.
Seems like you keep mixing FET with RET. But in both cases the highest point in Australia between the coasts is 1300 feet above sea level. It's almost like you think, as I think RonJ mentioned, that RET puts a curved dome over landmasses. I honestly don't understand what you keep going on about.
It's simple. Australia does not have 191 miles of curvature as dictated. It's not part of a globe earth. If it was, it would measure 191 miles high at center. The center would be 191 miles above the east and west coast waters. It has less that 1300' of curvature so to speak. You're globe earth theory with curvature charts put a curved 191 mile high dome over it. Not us.
Have a nice evening,
-
Maybe if you thought of the earth like this; start with a perfectly smooth round sphere with a radius of something like 3957 miles. Now on top of that sphere add the land masses and oceans. Everything sticks because every little bit is pulled toward the center of the sphere by gravity. Now you have all your land masses and oceans. You could see if you were on a road somewhere in the middle of a landmass you really couldn't tell that there was any curvature at all. You would always be standing vertical no matter where you were on the land, in any part of the earth. Now consider a perfectly round cactus with a bunch of long spines sticking out. Are all the spines parallel? No, but each individual spine could be perfectly vertical relative to the surrounding surface of the round cactus. Spines on the opposite sides would actually point in a completely different direction. Now, if you took a couple of 1000 foot towers that were separated by 10 miles, you could measure a difference in the distance between the top of the tower and the bottom. That's because, just like a cactus, the towers wouldn't be exactly parallel. Wouldn't this prove that there is curvature in the earth? Would there be much difference in the top VS bottom distances? Very careful measurements like this have been made in certain structures because the curvature of the earth was important and had to be factored in.
-
Maybe if you thought of the earth like this; start with a perfectly smooth round sphere with a radius of something like 3957 miles. Now on top of that sphere add the land masses and oceans. Everything sticks because every little bit is pulled toward the center of the sphere by gravity. Now you have all your land masses and oceans.
Then the landmasses on that kind of earth will be nothing but Plateaus sticking out of the water. How high these plateaus would stick out of the water all depends on the width and length and shape of the landmass. No horizontal landmass adjoining the coastline will exist because its below the dictated curve of a sphere. I will get into this issue another day.
-
Yes, you are starting to get closer. The landmasses essentially ARE just plateaus sticking out of the water. A lot of islands, Hawaii, for instance are essentially just the tops of mountains that extend far below the sea. Mauna Kea is actually taller than Mt Everest, but it doesn't count because some of Mauna Kea is below the water. Guam is another example. It is a bit mountainous but is adjacent to the lowest point in the ocean, the Marianas Trench thats about 7 miles deep. You have to understand that about 71% of the earth is covered in water. Most people don't really appreciate this fact because their only view of the sea is an occasional trip to the beach or maybe a trip on a cruise ship for a week. I can tell you from personal experience that the trip distances at sea are long. When we left Yokohama, Japan for the Panama Canal it usually took us about 20 to 21 days to get there. That's running about 500 miles/day. A ship is slower than a truck but it doesn't have to stop. It runs 24 hours a day for as long as it takes to get there. We could hold about 25000 miles worth of fuel in our tanks. That's one complete circle around the earth. It has also been claimed that less than 10% of the bottom of the sea has been explored. That's because the area is so vast and hard to get to. I worked on research ships for about 5 years and there's some huge mountains and deep valleys, all underwater, that are largely unseen by most humans. I didn't make or design the earth. All I'm trying to do is describe what I've personally witnessed and learned about while going to the merchant marine academy and witnessing much of what the scientist saw on the research ships. If you actually saw some of the underwater topographic maps you would probably be surprised. This doesn't really prove or disprove the globe earth, but a lot of the things I've personally witnessed do.
-
It's simple. Australia does not have 191 miles of curvature as dictated. It's not part of a globe earth. If it was, it would measure 191 miles high at center. The center would be 191 miles above the east and west coast waters. It has less that 1300' of curvature so to speak. You're globe earth theory with curvature charts put a curved 191 mile high dome over it. Not us.
Have a nice evening,
Just to satisfy my own curiosity and to try and understand what you think RET suggests. Is the following image representative of what you think the result is from globe earth curvature charts? (Obviously not to scale)
(https://i.imgur.com/QnnB1p4.jpg?1)
-
Please allow me to rephrase my statement.
No one can mathematically prove any landmass has the surface curvature as dictated by a 3959 mile radius. If they could or have, it would have been posted by now.
The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.
Measure the angle of the sun. Sorted.
You are sure welcome to start another topic with that issue. However, what ever results you come up with will not prove Earth's land masses have the curvature as dictated by a Earth with a 3959 mile radius nor will is add any.
Both elevation and curvature or lack thereof can be established and or verified in the same manner with two reverence points of “Sea Level”. The fact that central Australia’s highest point is less than 1300’ proves it does not have the curvature RE claim for a Earth with a 3959 mile radius. Simple math and established landmass elevations and a RE curvature chart prove the shape of our Earth is not what we all have been taught.
It is not an issue, simple maths using the sun as a fixed point will show the size and shape of the earth. Do you really think you have found that we have been incorrectly measuring distances?
-
[…]
Many of us spend 4 or 5 years at a merchant marine academy to learn the science behind getting from point A to point B on the globe. Each and every thing is based upon the globe earth paradigm. After we graduate we go to work on a ship and turn all that theory into practice. It all seems to work. That's why I believe. Do I really need further proof? No. What kind of proof do YOU need?
Good point. The question is not, do you believe in GE or FE, but rather, who would you choose to design aviation and navigation systems, given your personal safety might depend on whether it is correct (= works).
-
I dug out my 'Handbook of Mathematics' and it does have a nice section on spherical trigonometry in it. The bottom line is that it gives you all the relationships of distances between points on a sphere. It absolutely works on the earth each and every time it's tried. Yes, you need a few modifications when the equations are applied to the earth because the earth is not a perfect sphere, but the differences are small. Of course there is a 'price of entry' for understanding all this, but if you are willing to 'pay the price' the proof that the earth is a sphere is at your disposal. What is really crazy is that all the knowledge described in my handbook goes back 100s of years. I started to mess with a sextant and celestial navigation years before I started working as a professional seaman. At that time I owned a bit of farm ground on a gravel road in Midwestern USA. The property came with a deed and abstract. That paperwork described in detail the survey of the property complete with the latitude and longitude of the points that defined my property lines. Since I was 'up to speed' on all that kind of stuff I decided to verify all the survey points of my property outlined in the abstract. I fully expected it to be just an exercise to verify my understanding of all the principles I had learned. To my surprise I did find an error of about 50 feet in one of the lines. I took those concerns to my attorney who dismissed all my efforts 'out of hand' but said he would look into it. A couple of months later he came back and stated that I was correct in my calculations and had my abstract updated. That's been more than 25 years ago and that same attorney still is 'giving my a bunch of crap' about that episode costing him a couple hundred bucks. As a practical thing the lot lines would have been the same if the earth were flat or round, because those small differences won't matter. At larger distances the differences starts to add up. If the airlines or shipping companies were not using the right methods things would get ugly. If today's engineers who are designing certain things don't take the curvature of the earth into account they would probably be fired.
-
This should be clear enough for anyone to understand. Accepting it is what's hard.
(https://i.imgur.com/OvWELN8.jpg)
-
This should be clear enough for anyone to understand. Accepting it is what's hard.
(https://i.imgur.com/OvWELN8.jpg)
Clear in the sense that I think I understand what you think. And clear in the sense that I understand that you don't understand globe earth theory. Do a little poking around on the subjects of geodesy and NAVD88.
-
This should be clear enough for anyone to understand. Accepting it is what's hard.
(https://i.imgur.com/OvWELN8.jpg)
Clear in the sense that I think I understand what you think. And clear in the sense that I understand that you don't understand globe earth theory. Do a little poking around on the subjects of geodesy and NAVD88.
Thanks for the tip. Take a look at the meaning of level, sea level and see how topographical maps are made and ask yourself why doesn't Earth's landmass have any curvature.
-
The top diagram that has a nice curve between A and B may illustrate something interesting. Consider if the earth between A and B were polished very smooth and was a perfect sphere. What would you expect to happen to a bunch of water if you let it go in the center of the bulge? Would it flow downhill to A or B? No. What's the real technical definition of downhill? It always towards the center of gravity. The center of gravity at the center between point A and point B would be towards the center of the earth. Therefore the water wouldn't head for A or B but would tend to just spread out towards the middle. In fact if you dug a canal that was at Sea Level at both ends (A and B) and rose up the bulge 191 miles, you wouldn't expect any water to flow at all even if the gates of the canal were open at A and B. Why? Because the water everywhere between A and B would be at an equal distance to the center of the earth and would experience an equal pull of gravity everywhere. What makes water flow is the difference in gravity between one point and another. Now if you go to the bottom diagram and dug the same canal and opened up the gates, I would expect the sea at A and B to flow in, overflow the canal and mostly fill in the bulge up to the 191 miles. That probably wouldn't happen in actual practice because the sea level would fall a lot at A and B due to the amount of water needed, but at the end you would expect that the water levels would equalize until the top of the water was at an equal distance to the enter of the earth everywhere on the oceans and between A and B. So you would then have maybe 191 miles of ocean water at the center, except there wouldn't be enough water in the oceans, so it would be some lower.
-
This should be clear enough for anyone to understand. Accepting it is what's hard.
Linked for brevity (https://i.imgur.com/OvWELN8.jpg)
Clear in the sense that I think I understand what you think. And clear in the sense that I understand that you don't understand globe earth theory. Do a little poking around on the subjects of geodesy and NAVD88.
Thanks for the tip. Take a look at the meaning of level, sea level and see how topographical maps are made and ask yourself why doesn't Earth's landmass have any curvature.
Level: Many definitions, but in 'sea level' it is probably being used as either a noun (a position on a real or imaginary scale of amount, quantity, extent, or quality) or an adjective (at the same height as someone or something else)
Sea level: the level of the sea's surface, used in reckoning the height of geographical features such as hills and as a barometric standard
Topographical maps are made in relation to sea level. On a globe, sea level could alternatively be described as (roughly) a specified distance from the center of the globe. You're attacking a strawman. Sea level on the globe Earth is not a plane, it is a sphere.
On a globe, the blue line indicates sea level. (Rough diagram, I know it's part of an oval, but work with me here.) The two black lines indicate the shores of Australia. The orange line is the 191 mile 'bulge' between Australia's shores. The green line is the highest point on Australia, which is the brown line. Obviously this isn't to scale, but intended to assist. Topographical height is determined by sea level. Sea level is (roughly) a sphere of radius r around the core of the Earth. This is the location height is measured against. Not against the chord/plane represented by the grey line. That would be fairly useless.
(https://i.imgur.com/j5qEtXL.png)
You're basing your point on a strawman. Perhaps a misunderstanding on your part, but a strawman nonetheless.
-
This should be clear enough for anyone to understand. Accepting it is what's hard.
Clear in the sense that I think I understand what you think. And clear in the sense that I understand that you don't understand globe earth theory. Do a little poking around on the subjects of geodesy and NAVD88.
Thanks for the tip. Take a look at the meaning of level, sea level and see how topographical maps are made and ask yourself why doesn't Earth's landmass have any curvature.
Here's a quick primer on how modern topo maps are made as well as how other survey maps/charts are created: Globe earth centric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXTHaMY3cVk
Bonus material. What's the highest mountain on earth? It's complicated:
(https://aamboceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanservice-prod/facts/highestpoint.jpg)
-
Yes, the basic distance to the earth's center is based upon sea level. Well it's actually Mean Sea Level, because sea level itself has minor variations due to tides, winds, storms, or sometimes earth quakes. You usually see the height of something quoted in MSL (mean sea level). Airplanes fly above the earth in height above MSL as well. When we came into port and went under a bridge you can bet that we knew exactly what the height of the tides were. Otherwise the ship might hit the bottom of the bridge if our calculations were wrong. Usually there were calibration marks on the bridge support structures to give us an 'up to the second' report on the local sea level at that time. We could then look at the water marks on the hull of the ship to know how far the ship was immersed in water (its draft) and then knowing that could calculate how far the top (highest point) of the ship was above water (the air draft). All of this stuff was nice to know before going under a bridge. There have been rare occasions when the local MSL was just too high because of heavy rains upstream on a river and our air draft was just a bit too high to fit under a bridge. We just had to anchor out until things settled down before going the short distance up river into the port.
-
Globe believers have an established curvature chart for an Earth with a 3959 Mile radius. It dictates how much curvature there should be over land and water.
Are there any Globe believers here who can calculate how much curvature should be over Australia using their own charts? And can they also prove Australia does in fact have the curvature as dictated by comparing it to the actual surface shape, and show us how they came to that conclusion?
Applying the Earth curvature Chart to our Earth’s landmass is a simple and easy way to prove right here and now if Earth is indeed a ball. The debate would be over.
Can they do it? Let see.
Australia is roughly 2400 miles in width. Hamelin Pool, Shark Bay Western Australia to Sunshine Coast, Australia is 2406 miles. See picture below.
How much curvature should Australia have? How much does it really have? How did you come to this conclusion? Please include all methods.
We will be waiting…
Thanks in advance,
The shape and size of the earth is proven, no belief is required. By asking here you are just 'testing' people who visit this site rather than anything useful.
-
If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.
The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
-
If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.
The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.
-
Let's say that it rained for 400 days and 400 nights. Everyone had to leave their homes because the earth's dry land was totally underwater, everywhere. We were all in a 'water-world' to the max. Now, since the earth's surface is totally covered by water, how would you measure the distance to the center of the earth? It would be from sea level to the center of the earth. Since the water seeks the gravity at the center of the earth that distance would be constant everywhere, and would be measured to the water's surface. Now, start taking all the water away. First the highest parts of the earth's surface would appear out of the seas, like the tip of Mt Everest. Slowly the rest of the land starts to rise out of the sea. Australia would come back slowly. Visualize that scenario and think about what would happen between point A and B on the diagram as the water very slowly drains off and the land slowly starts to appear out of the sea again.
-
If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.
The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.
If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line. I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?
How may ways can one come up with the same results?
-
If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.
The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.
If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line. I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?
How may ways can one come up with the same results?
Ok, I'm bored, so I'll respond. Regarding globe earth theory, curvature 'charts', calcs, etc., you do realize, that standing in the middle of the ocean trying to see, let's say a ship, the same distance away as the width of Australia, no landmass inbetween, just ocean, this "bulge" you can't seem to wrap your head around would be the same, roughly 191 miles?
-
If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.
The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.
If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line. I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?
How may ways can one come up with the same results?
Ok, I'm bored, so I'll respond. Regarding globe earth theory, curvature 'charts', calcs, etc., you do realize, that standing in the middle of the ocean trying to see, let's say a ship, the same distance away as the width of Australia, no landmass inbetween, just ocean, this "bulge" you can't seem to wrap your head around would be the same, roughly 191 miles?
Yes on a Globe with a 3959 Mile radius, and Australia wouldn't exists because it's at Sea curve. Only a 1076' high landmass would exist and it would be a very small hill Island.
-
If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.
The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.
If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line. I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?
How may ways can one come up with the same results?
It is not a bulge, it is the shape of the spherical earth. Proven by measurements, distances, path of the sun, satellite dish angles etc.
-
If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.
The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.
If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line. I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?
How may ways can one come up with the same results?
It is not a bulge, it is the shape of the spherical earth. Proven by measurements, distances, path of the sun, satellite dish angles etc.
Many Globe believers use the word "bulge", so I have done the same. I have not seen anyone prove Australia has 191 miles of curvature. Can you?
-
Many Globe believers us the word "bulge", so I have done the same.
Yes, they do. It’s unfortunate because it’s a useless and misguided concept in a globe model. I don’t know where it started, but I would hope it was only adopted because globe skeptics were using the term. Metabunk has it on its curvature graphic.
But it serves no purpose other than to incorrectly foster the impression of a “hill” or mound rising and falling between two points on a globe. And that’s how you depict it in your graphic. I can’t fault you for that if you are misled by the “bulge “ notion. Wish I could eradicate that concept.
I have a half-finished “Battle of the Bulge” video in work. I should finish that up so that I can present that any time I see a round or flat earthed perpetuating the misconception.
-
Yes, Bobby is right, 'bulge' is quite misleading as term in this topic. So forget that word for now. In the mean time, look over the attached and let us know if any light bulbs go off.
(https://i.imgur.com/TmZt9fQ.jpg?1)
-
Yes, Bobby is right, 'bulge' is quite misleading as term in this topic. So forget that word for now. In the mean time, look over the attached and let us know if any light bulbs go off.
(https://i.imgur.com/TmZt9fQ.jpg?1)
Yup, I can see the bulge. But it sure doesn't measure 191 miles at center from the base of point A and B, according to a Curvature chart.
I also see a huge Australia. It would't look that big in a real picture.
-
Yes, Bobby is right, 'bulge' is quite misleading as term in this topic. So forget that word for now. In the mean time, look over the attached and let us know if any light bulbs go off.
(https://i.imgur.com/TmZt9fQ.jpg?1)
Yup, I can see the bulge. But it sure doesn't measure 191 miles at center from the base of point A and B, according to a Curvature chart.
I also see a huge Australia. It would't look that big in a real picture.
In short, you don't understand globe earth curvature nor curvature on a basketball, but that's fine.
Australia is pretty big depending upon your POV. Do you have a real picture of what it should look like that you're willing to share?
-
I agree the 191 mile bulge is confusing and the term should be banned. Think of it this way. Take a perfect sphere with nothing on it. Then cut it in half. Then the bulge would be 3959 miles. If you cut off just the top 3 quarters, then the bulge would be 2969 miles. You can see that you can keep cutting the sphere into small and smaller sections. It still would be hard to see any physical curvature of the earth, but you could still measure it indirectly. That's the real problem. On land in rolling hills or in the desert the average terrain may actually be mostly flat with only a curvature, on average. Even at sea a bubble level would always be centered because vertical is always towards the center of the earth. Those vertical lines would not be parallel. It's all confusing because man is so small and the earth is so large. When you start observing the sun, moon, and stars you can start getting an appreciation to the true spherical nature of the earth. Those that just go to work, watch TV, then go to sleep will never have any reason to care, one way or another, about the shape of the earth.
-
I agree the 191 mile bulge is confusing and the term should be banned. Think of it this way. Take a perfect sphere with nothing on it. Then cut it in half. Then the bulge would be 3959 miles. If you cut off just the top 3 quarters, then the bulge would be 2969 miles. You can see that you can keep cutting the sphere into small and smaller sections. It still would be hard to see any physical curvature of the earth, but you could still measure it indirectly. That's the real problem. On land in rolling hills or in the desert the average terrain may actually be mostly flat with only a curvature, on average. Even at sea a bubble level would always be centered because vertical is always towards the center of the earth. Those vertical lines would not be parallel. It's all confusing because man is so small and the earth is so large. When you start observing the sun, moon, and stars you can start getting an appreciation to the true spherical nature of the earth. Those that just go to work, watch TV, then go to sleep will never have any reason to care, one way or another, about the shape of the earth.
None of what you have said makes any sense with most all of our current landmasses having coastal lands below the grade of your 3959 mile (sea curve) radius earth. It would all be flooded until the radius of the Earth was completed. Level, (horizontal) lands could not adjoin the coast on your world, unless you had a force field that held back the waters.
Our coast lands are below the grade of the curve of your 3959 mile radius earth and there is no force field holding back the waters.
-
The force that holds back all the waters is gravity. Of course you don't have to believe in gravity. You could start building an arc. I really don't know how to explain it any better. Buy yourself a nice globe and study it for a couple of hours and maybe you will understand.
-
The force that holds back all the waters is gravity. Of course you don't have to believe in gravity. You could start building an arc. I really don't know how to explain it any better. Buy yourself a nice globe and study it for a couple of hours and maybe you will understand.
Yes, gravity (a theory that has never been proven) the fix for all things that can't be explained. It keeps coastal low-lying lands from (continuing a curve) being flooded by the dictated oceans curve.
-
I agree the 191 mile bulge is confusing and the term should be banned. Think of it this way. Take a perfect sphere with nothing on it. Then cut it in half. Then the bulge would be 3959 miles. If you cut off just the top 3 quarters, then the bulge would be 2969 miles. You can see that you can keep cutting the sphere into small and smaller sections. It still would be hard to see any physical curvature of the earth, but you could still measure it indirectly. That's the real problem. On land in rolling hills or in the desert the average terrain may actually be mostly flat with only a curvature, on average. Even at sea a bubble level would always be centered because vertical is always towards the center of the earth. Those vertical lines would not be parallel. It's all confusing because man is so small and the earth is so large. When you start observing the sun, moon, and stars you can start getting an appreciation to the true spherical nature of the earth. Those that just go to work, watch TV, then go to sleep will never have any reason to care, one way or another, about the shape of the earth.
None of what you have said makes any sense with most all of our current landmasses having coastal lands below the grade of your 3959 mile (sea curve) radius earth. It would all be flooded until the radius of the Earth was completed. Level, (horizontal) lands could not adjoin the coast on your world, unless you had a force field that held back the waters.
Our coast lands are below the grade of your 3959 mile radius earth and there is no force field holding back the waters.
4 pages and you're still not getting it...hmmm.
In any case, let's start from the beginning. Some qualifying questions:
1) In Globe Earth Theory (GET, sometimes referred to as Round Earth Theory or RET) do you agree that the belief is that earth is spherical, kind of like a ball? Y/N
2) In GET do you agree that the belief is that, in this example, the landmass of Australia spherically conforms to a globe? (Think of smearing peanut butter onto a portion of a bowling ball in the shape of Australia - See how it's kinda rounded around a portion of the ball, that's what I mean by 'spherical conformity'.) Y/N
3) Let's say the surface of the bowling ball is all ocean and our smeared peanut butter is the Australian landmass. Y/N
4) Now, get a band saw and cut the just the area that has the peanut butter from the bowling ball. Like you're cutting a slice of bread from a loaf. Take that slice and lay it down on a table, peanut butter/Australia side up. With me? Y/N
5) Crouch down so you are eye level with the surface of the table. See that slice, how it's flat on the bottom, rounded on the top with the peanut butter smeared on it? Y/N
6) If you look at the middle of that slice, the distance from the bottom of the slice to the top of the slice is the dreaded 'bulge' we have all been speaking about.
If you answered 'N' to any of the questions either:
A) None of us are able to ever explain this to you
B) You have zero concept of what a sphere is, let alone the earth
C) Both
-
I really believe that everything is well understood. There are those who just need to stir the pot and generate more posts. The underlying objective is to NOT understand and let the 'sheeple' do the explaining. As the old saying goes: 'A lion never looses sleep over the opinions of a sheep'
-
If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.
The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
I wonder if we can look at this a different way. Forget GPS, lasers, anything electronic, lets use 19th century equipment and techniques, so a surveyors level of some kind (e.g. a theodolite) and a couple of levelling rods (big poles with graduated markings similar to a ruler) and a few other bits and pieces.
Start at Shark bay on the west coast. Find a bit of flat ground near the sea and work out its elevation somehow, let's say 30' above sea level. This is our initial datum. Pick another point roughly 600' inland. Site the theodolite half way between the two and hold the rods vertically at the two chosen points. If the theodolite crosshairs are centred 4' above the base of the first rod and 3' above the base of the second rod, then the second rod must be sitting on land 1' higher than the first, so we have established a new datum 31' above sea level and 600' closer to where we are headed.
Keep repeating this process, moving one rod at a time, leapfrogging to establish new datum positions and heights above sea level, ever closer to the target.
Eventually we end up at Marla and all being well we find we're 1076' above sea level.
So does it matter whether the Earth is flat or round? Here's a diagram...
(https://i.imgur.com/gf6TI6s.jpg)
In both cases, the theodolite crosshairs point to the same positions on the three levelling rods so all three positions A, B & C are the same height above sea level.
In other words, flat or round, doesn't matter, the heights still come out the same, if A os 30' above sea level, then so is B and so is C.
-
Notice in case B that the vertical rods are not parallel. That's the evidence of the global earth. Unfortunately, actually measuring the difference is difficult with simple equipment. It is possible to get accurate measurements using laser technology but it seems to be difficult to get some people to believe the data. There's lots of information on the internet, but what can you actually believe? You can make any claims you wish and then claim any evidence to the contrary is 'fake'. In the end the core objective to foster controversy. You can monetize that.
-
Basic trigonometry is at the core of the method that Norwood used in the 1600s, and this method applies for the whole world, not just Australia
Bryson summarised it in A Short History of Nearly Everything
"Starting with his back against the Tower of London, Norwood spent two devoted years marching 208 miles north to York, repeatedly stretching and measuring a length of chain as he went, all the while making the most meticulous adjustments for the rise and fall of the land and the meanderings of the road. The final step was to measure the angle of the sun at York at the same time of day and on the same day of the year as he had made his first measurement in London. From this, he reasoned he could determine the length of one degree of the Earth’s meridian and thus calculate the distance around the whole. It was an almost ludicrously ambitious undertaking—a mistake of the slightest fraction of a degree would throw the whole thing out by miles—but in fact, as Norwood proudly declaimed, he was accurate to “within a scantling”—or, more precisely, to within about six hundred yards. In metric terms, his figure worked out at 110.72 kilometres per degree of arc."
The French Geodesic Mission did the same the following century, with the same result, within reasonable margin of error for the time
The method used has no meaning on a flat earth. The trig is based around circular geometry and trig, and falls apart if the Earth is flat. Subsequent revisions have merely refined the figure to a more exact one, and/or confirmed the oblateness around the equator.