(1) | One way to derive these dimensions is the original definitions of the Nautical Mile as one minute of either longitude or latitude. So the equator to pole distance becomes 90° x 60' x 1Nm/min = 5,400 Nm or 10,000.8 km and the circumference around the equator becomes 360° x 60' x 1Nm/min = 21,600 Nm or 40,003.2 km |
(2) | I know that the accepted figures are 40,075 km and 10,002 km resp, but I am using rounded numbers for simplicity. |
(3) | The Bi-Polar model has been suggested elsewhere, but I really do not see how that can help. |
(4) | Redefining π as 2 might help - bit that is a bit way out for me!. |
Please provide your evidence.
I doubt that flat earth believers will rush at this.
Before I put my foot too close to my mouth I would like to ask what are the accepted distances for:Rounding the distances to nice simple numbers would be nice, as high accuracy is not needed.
MeasurementDistance I would use Equator to North Pole10,000 km Circumference of Equator40,000 km
I believe I can justify these figures (or close to them) from previous writings of TFES or widely accepted data.
Please provide your evidence.Evidence of what?No, I didn't pace out each degree from the equator to the north pole!
No, I didn't pace out each degree around the equator!
Uhhh... Good point, except whenever I search I'm seeing that the best answer for the distance (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070602212135AAYLqyp) from NP to EQ is ~20k km, and EQ circumference (https://www.google.com/search?q=equator+circumferencec) is 40k km. If that's not the definition of 'radius', I don't know what is.Notwithstanding that
Granted, some quick searches do show WILD variance on the former's distance; I've seen from 7.5k km to 50k km in just the past few minutes. However, the first google result (https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1770E_halfway-between-the-equator-and-the-north-pole) ("equator to north pole distance" I'm feeling lucky) states that the KM was actually designed on - whatever 10k of any measurement equaled said distance. So, meh. Looks like there isn't a consensus, but I just picked this up right as I saw this topic, so I don't really know.
Best Answer: North pole to equator= 12429.91 milesThere is not much disagreement about the distance from the equator to the north pole being close to 10,000 km.
or
20004 kilometers
Or 12.8 weeks in a kayak ; )
LatitudeSince there are 90° of latitude from the equator to the north pole, the distance must be 90 x 69.5 = 6,250 miles or 10,058 km, close enough for this application. Mind you Napoleon was closer!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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.
Yeah saw that meager yahoo questions source getting thwarted a mile off.Don't worry about the egg, that was largely that silly Yahoo answer's fault. I should not have put all that in to answer your post. It was really aimed at Tom Bishop, not you. So I am going to delete most of that reply to you and try to put a "more compact" version into an answer to Tom Bishop's "evidence" post.
Not so bad for the first egg I'll be scraping off my face here.
tl;dr you win for now as far as I'm concerned. But I know how to turn ice into fire.
Please provide your evidence.I apologise for the length, but you wanted evidence!
LatitudeSince there are 90° of latitude from the equator to the north pole, the distance must be 90 x 69.5 = 6,250 miles or 10,058 km, close enough for this application. Mind you Napoleon was closer!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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.
Al-BiruniThis gives an equatorial circumference of 39,833 km - not far from the current 40,075 km. Note that his methods were some of the earliest examples of Geodetic-Surveying. Al-Biruni is regarded as "the father of Geodetic-Surveying".
Important contributions to geodesy and geography were also made by Biruni. He introduced techniques to measure the earth and distances on it using triangulation. He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km.
I doubt that FE supporters will accept even this evidence, so I have calculated my estimate of the circumference from a couple days travel, on mainly west to east journeys on an "almost round the block trip". Of course the road (even across the Nullabor) is not quite straight. So I actually used the Garmin GPS Map for the distance. Just in case that naughty NASA has been tricking us with the GPS readings I compared used the car's odometer with the map and GPS (the Landcruiser Prado odometer is almost exact). From the point-to-point distances I worked the west-east component of distance, the longitude difference and the average latitude of each of two journeys. From these figures I can calculate the km/degree at the latitude of that journey and hence the (circumference at that latitude) = 360 x (km/degree). If these figures are accepted, we now have to work out what the equatorial circumference. On the globe that is easy (at least to a good appoximation), where the (equatorial circumference) = (circumference at that latitude)/cos(latitude). But, for the flat earth we have the problem that no-one seems certain of the accepted map! I will take it as the map on the right on which we should be able to calculate the (equatorial circumference) = (circumference at that latitude)*90/(90-latitude), since on this map the meridians of longitude are straight lines radiating from the north pole. | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20equ%20co-ords_zps5kmnmgbb.png) The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth. |
Origin and Destination | "Long Diff" | "at Lat" | "km/deg" | "Circ at Lat" | "Circ at Equ Globe" | "Circ at Equ Flat" |
Balladonia (Western Australia) to Eucla (Western Australia) | 5.264° | -32.01° | 94.5 | 34,021 km | 40,123 km | 31,302 km |
Eucla(Western Australia) to Penong(South Australia) | 4.125° | -31.80° | 94.7 | 34,087 km | 40,108 km | 32,055 km |
Who says how big a flat earth could be? Is there a limit?No-one is limiting the size of the "flat earth". I am only asking two things:
This is how this topic makes me feel (https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9f4e9ae1348303af34135f60b4b6b269?convert_to_webp=true); like I'm starting my Spring Break off with Insanity.Well, how would you measure you distance precisely even if you did exactly "circumnavigate the equator".
Going [further] off topic now. I have a "collection of Flat Earth Talking Points" index I'm making (already posted an alpha, but it needs a lot of work); would you be on board with me including this 10k vs 40k piece? I can cross reference this post if you want (in my alpha version, I already mentioned Geodetic Surveying (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_Earth_wager) once, but not Al-Biruni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Al-Biruni)). Even if the distances are disproved, it still qualifies, as FETP is an index.
Edit: walked away and thought about it a bit. It obviously all comes down to the actual equator circumference, seeing as the Kilometer by definition was BORN (http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/who-invented-the-metric-system) by measuring from the North pole to the Equator. Going all the way back to one of the first major Geodetic missions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Geodesic_Mission), I haven't found one that actually circumnavigated the equator; most seem to make mathematical inferences from scientific observations instead.
See Finding your Latitude and Longitude (http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude)
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.
Longitude
To find your longitude you just need to know how many hours apart you are from Greenwich, UK and a vertical stick to know when the sun is at its zenith over your present location.
Uhhh... Good point, except whenever I search I'm seeing that the best answer for the distance (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070602212135AAYLqyp) from NP to EQ is ~20k km, and EQ circumference (https://www.google.com/search?q=equator+circumferencec) is 40k km. If that's not the definition of 'radius', I don't know what is.
Granted, some quick searches do show WILD variance on the former's distance; I've seen from 7.5k km to 50k km in just the past few minutes. However, the first google result (https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1770E_halfway-between-the-equator-and-the-north-pole) ("equator to north pole distance" I'm feeling lucky) states that the KM was actually designed on - whatever 10k of any measurement equaled said distance. So, meh. Looks like there isn't a consensus, but I just picked this up right as I saw this topic, so I don't really know.
I simply cannot seem to provoke a reasonable debate on what the actual circumference through the equator is.Uhhh... Good point, except whenever I search I'm seeing that the best answer for the distance (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070602212135AAYLqyp) from NP to EQ is ~20k km, and EQ circumference (https://www.google.com/search?q=equator+circumferencec) is 40k km. If that's not the definition of 'radius', I don't know what is.
Granted, some quick searches do show WILD variance on the former's distance; I've seen from 7.5k km to 50k km in just the past few minutes. However, the first google result (https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1770E_halfway-between-the-equator-and-the-north-pole) ("equator to north pole distance" I'm feeling lucky) states that the KM was actually designed on - whatever 10k of any measurement equaled said distance. So, meh. Looks like there isn't a consensus, but I just picked this up right as I saw this topic, so I don't really know.
If you google "circumference of the earth through the poles" you get this website ... http://www.space.com/17638-how-big-is-earth.html
It says the circumference at the equator is 40,075 km (24,902 miles), whereas the circumference through the poles is 40,008 km (24,860 miles)
So rounding off to 40,000 km for the circumference through the equator, and 10,000km for the distance from the equator to the North Pole is totally acceptable.
From memory the original post contained nothing about the radius of the earth, which would be the distance from either one of the poles or from the equator, directly to the centre of the earth, which is about 6,370 km