Dear Mr. Bishop, may I ask you what the circumference of the equator is according to the FES? Thank you.
Unknown. Lack of investigation. There are only a few loose theories for the nature of the earth's layout.
Having just read the chapter in EnaG on the circumference, of the earth, which is covered in chapter 4, there are some very obvious errors in his calculations, and his references are not reliable.
His empirical evidence is based on magazine or newspaper articles where a ships captain in such and such a date claimed to have steamed x many miles in x many days. He then goes on to ASSUME an average speed of the vessel, and also completely misjudge and miscalculate the distances, for example;
“From the preceding facts it is evident that the circumference of the earth, at the distance of the Cape of Good Hope from the polar centre, is not less in round numbers than 23,400 miles. Hence the radius or distance in a direct line from the polar centre to Cape Town, to Sydney, to Auckland in New Zealand, and to all the places on the same arc, is about 3720 statute miles. And as the distance from the polar centre to Valencia in Ireland is shown to be 2556 statute miles, the direct distance from Valencia to Cape Town is 1164 statute miles”
Now from his quote above he was talking Vancia in county Kerry in Ireland. So if it is 2556 miles to the pole, and 3,720 miles to Auckland, that makes a total of 6,276 miles, (statute) from Ireland to Auckland, which is diametrically opposite more or less (in terms of the globe)
Airliners fly around 600 miles per hour, which means the flight time to New Zealand from Ireland is 10 1/2 hours.
In reality it is over 24!
This is important as he uses this figure to base his calculations on the circumference of the world, which is also flawed, and he maintains the following;
“Thus from purely practical data, setting all theories aside, it is ascertained that the diameter of the earth, from the Ross Mountains, or from the volcanic mountains of which Mount Erebus is the chief, to the same radius distance on the opposite side of the northern centre, is more than 10,400 miles; and the circumference, 52,800 statute miles.”
Both figures are ludicrous, and do not stand up to observations, and empirical evidence of sailors and pilots of today. Which is why i am amazed that Tom amongst others refuse to believe the accounts of modern navigators considering the whole of Chapter 4 of EnaG is based upon sketchy reports of distances of sailors from 1840s and 1850s, and some so called evidence from other ships captains who didnt want to be attributed to the data!
Really Charlatan Rowbotham, you could do better. I think in todays jargon it is called BUSTED