I collect some so called facts about globe earth, and then I made some calculations.
First so called facts about globe (ball) earth (I use "km")
Radius(ball) 6 378 km
Diameter(ball) 12 756 km
Circumference(ball) 40 000 km
Area/acreage (ball) 507 000 000 square kilometer
Then calculations (flat earth ie. circle) assuming, that distance from north pole to the edge (south pole) ie. radius is 20 000 km (same distance as in surface of globe earth):
Radius (circle) 20 000 km
Diameter (circle) 40 000 km
Circumference (circle) 126 000 km
Area/acreage (circle) 1 260 000 000 square kilometer
So what do you think about those calculations? Acreage of flat earth is 2,5 times bigger than globe earth assuming that my calculations are correct (ie. radius of flat earth) and that makes me thinking about the look of the real map of flat earth. Or have I missed something in my calculation or made some mistake?
Problem is, how to present surface of a ball (3d) in 2d level circle (paper or screen) and vice versa. You cannot do it without adding data or removing data (ie. water/land) if you want to keep the "picture/map" uniform/united. Has anyone thought this before?![Huh? ???](/Smileys/default/huh.gif)
Your "calculations" seem basically correct to me. By the way, you say "Area/acreage". Just "area" is sufficient "acreage" would imply measurement in "acres", the old "imperial" area unit.
Yes, I totally agree that the area of the Flat Earth raises some serious questions.
Even more significant than the total area is the distribution between hemispheres (I guess we should say hemi
planes on the Flat earth).
On the Globe (by your figures) each hemisphere would cover
Earth Shape | Total Area | Area of North Half | Area of South Half | South/North |
Globe Earth | 507,000,000 km^2 | 253,500,000 km^2 | 253,500,000 km^2 | 100% |
Area of the Flat Earth | 1,260,000,000 km^2 | 315,000,000 km^2 | 945,000,000 km^2 | 300% |
Now on the Flat Earth:
The sun in the northern mid-summer has to light and heat the 315,000,000 km^2 of the northern hemiplane,
while in the southern mid-summer it has to light and heat the 945,000,000 km^2 of the southern hemiplane.
But, it is the same sun, so the light and heat intensity in the Southern Hemiplane should be only about one third that of the Northern Hemiplane, but we know for a certain fact that this is NOT true. See
Q: Does one hemisphere have a more intense summer than the other?
Yes, the southern hemisphere receives more solar energy at the peak of its summer than the northern hemisphere. The reason for this effect is summarized in this
exaggerated cartoon. Because the orbit of the Earth is elliptical, the Earth will be closer to the Sun at one extreme (the perihelion) than it is at the other (the aphleion). It so happens that the Earth is further away from the Sun during northern summer/southern winter than it is at northern winter/southern summer. As a result, in the Southern hemisphere, the effect of the Earth's tilt and the difference in the distance from the Sun add up to create a hotter summer and a colder winter. You can see this effect when you look at the peak insolation as shown in this chart.
![](http://i.imgur.com/nS5HoH1.png)
To take the extreme case, peak insolation is higher by about 7% at the South Pole compared to the North Pole. As you move towards the equator, this difference will decrease, until it reaches 0 right at the equator.
Earth Sciences, Does one hemisphere have a more intense summer than the other?
.
So, in actual fact, at southern hemisphere's
summer solstice it actually receives more solar radiation than northern hemisphere at its
summer solstice.
The annual average, however, is very little different.
There is no possible way this can be explained away, except for the Flat Earthers to hypothesise that somehow the sun's energy output is "wound up".
For various reasons, possibly including this, Tom Bishop has eschewed this "Ice-Wall" map in favour of the "Bi-polar" map. Here's how they compare:
Flat Earth Ice Wall Map | --------- | Bipolar Flat Earth |
But, from my point of view the Bipolar map introduces more problems than it fixes.
Just look at the shapes of USA, Africa and Australia and the relative areas of Australia and Africa.
The areas should be Australia, 7.692 million km
2 and Africa, 30.37 million km
2.