The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Myciini on October 18, 2016, 08:25:42 PM

Title: About measurements globe vs. flat earth
Post by: Myciini on October 18, 2016, 08:25:42 PM
Hi e1 and sorry my bad english

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")
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):
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????
Title: Re: About measurements globe vs. flat earth
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2016, 12:25:33 AM
Hi e1 and sorry my bad english

Since you bring up your grasp of English, I will answer this in two parts.

In this part, I shall comment on problems many have with English, as I truly think it would be a ghastly to learn as a second language.
English is so full of exceptions, multiple words with almost the same meaning (synonyms) and different meanings for same spelling.
And then, there are the many ways of pronouncing the same letter or syllable in places where many other languages would use accents to indicate the difference in pronunciation.

But there's no need to apologise for your "bad English". You seem to use English better than most of us!
The thing that many find hard to master is the use of the articles (a, an and the).
The rules in English are tricky, but most nouns are preceded by "a" or "the". This reference might be helpful Grammarly Handbook, Articles (https://www.grammarly.com/handbook/grammar/articles/6/unnecessary-definite-article/).

I use the Grammarly browser (and Word) add-on. If I type "I took bus to school." It underlines "bus" and gives the message "Missing article", but note no article is needed before school! Ain't English grand!  ;)
In writing "I took bus to school." I noticed that it is an example of the uses of no article, the indefinite article (a or an) and the definite article (the).

In English it would be quite correct to write:
"I took a bus to school." meaning "I took an unspecified bus to school as just a part of the 'education system'."
"I took a bus to a school." meaning "I took an unspecified bus to an unspecified school."
"I took the bus to the school." meaning "I took a particular bus to a particular school."
It would even be correct to write "I went by bus to the school." meaning "I went by the bus transport system to a particular school."
All too subtle for a dinky di Aussie to describe very well!

How do we get it right? We say what "sounds right" and then get thoroughly confused when anyone asks us the rules!

No, i hope I haven't made too many mistakes in this, but some always creep through.

Title: Re: About measurements globe vs. flat earth
Post by: rabinoz on October 19, 2016, 01:40:51 AM

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")
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):
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????

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 hemiplanes 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
Quote
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 (http://i.imgur.com/WFe09pN.png). 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? (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4wl28n/does_one_hemisphere_have_a_more_intense_summer/)
.
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:

 (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Map_zpsbx8yebjh.png)Flat Earth Ice Wall Map --------- (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Altmap_zpsfpjri3lv.png)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 km2 and Africa, 30.37 million km2.

Title: Re: About measurements globe vs. flat earth
Post by: Southernhemispere on October 19, 2016, 06:34:03 PM
There are no FE'ers left here. I think we should rename it the ex-flat earth society! There is no way for them to respond any more.
Title: Re: About measurements globe vs. flat earth
Post by: geckothegeek on October 19, 2016, 08:18:35 PM
There are no FE'ers left here. I think we should rename it the ex-flat earth society! There is no way for them to respond any more.

I haven't been around on this website as long as others , but IMHO it has sort of evolved into the "Round Earth ( Or Globe)  Facts And Information" website.
Maybe the flat earthers just have run out of their imagination to invent new words like "Universal Acceleration", "Aether", "Ice Wall", "Ice Dome", "Atmoplane", et cetera, et cetera, and so forth. ???
Title: Re: About measurements globe vs. flat earth
Post by: geckothegeek on October 19, 2016, 08:26:55 PM

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")
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):
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????

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 hemiplanes 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
Quote
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 (http://i.imgur.com/WFe09pN.png). 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? (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4wl28n/does_one_hemisphere_have_a_more_intense_summer/)
.
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:

 (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Map_zpsbx8yebjh.png)Flat Earth Ice Wall Map --------- (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Altmap_zpsfpjri3lv.png)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 km2 and Africa, 30.37 million km2.

And just look at Antarctica . It does appear as a Continent instead of the "Ice Ring", but it appears to be about the same size as the other continents on the Bipolar Map.