Latitudinal lines south of equator
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:58:53 PM »
I was reading Rowbotham's book where he said there had been no measurement of latitude distance south of the equator in his time. If the latitude lengths increase in the southern seas, this is sure empirical proof of a flat world. Do you guys have any more information?? Thanks

Re: Latitudinal lines south of equator
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2014, 01:33:27 AM »
Where are the ships logs? Post the ships logs and we can talk.

geckothegeek

Re: Latitudinal lines south of equator
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2016, 01:03:12 AM »
I was reading Rowbotham's book where he said there had been no measurement of latitude distance south of the equator in his time. If the latitude lengths increase in the southern seas, this is sure empirical proof of a flat world. Do you guys have any more information?? Thanks

(1) "In his time" was 1850.
(2)  This is again circular reasoning. If you consider the Azimuthal Equidistant Map as the map of the true shap of the earth, then the earth is flat. I the earth is flat, then latitude lengths increase in the southern seas. Another Rowbotham fallacy.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Latitudinal lines south of equator
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2016, 01:53:56 AM »
Well since places south of the equator existed and ships were traveling to them during his time I find it hard to believe.  Maybe he means no official measurement by certain organizations, but I am willing to bet sailors would notice if trips were much further than expected.

I certainly have not noticed anything odd with the distances traveled and what charts said they would be. 

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Latitudinal lines south of equator
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2016, 04:58:07 AM »
Well since places south of the equator existed and ships were traveling to them during his time I find it hard to believe.  Maybe he means no official measurement by certain organizations, but I am willing to bet sailors would notice if trips were much further than expected.
I certainly have not noticed anything odd with the distances traveled and what charts said they would be.

This is a thread I started some time ago on the other site The Flat Earth Society - Index titled "Measurements of the Earth Prove it cannot be Flat".

There have been a number of threads on Geodetic Surveyors and how they "prove the earth is a Globe". So many "shot them down" saying that Geodetic Surveyors did not "prove curvature", possibly not, but as I have stated so often Geodetic Surveyors measured the earth and have done so with increasing accuracy for centuries. The sizes of all countries and the lat/long coordinates of all features have been measured and can readily be ascertained. The most compact source of this information is in maps (some very accurate, others less so) and atlases (often not very accurate, but usually quite close enough).

And it is these measurements that show us the "shape of the earth".

The following assumes that at a given latitude, a degree of longitude is the same all around the globe.

This seems quite consistent with all evidence[1] and with what is in "the Wiki" on Finding your Latitude and Longitude.

The following table gives the width of one degree (under the heading "km/deg") at various latitudes in both the northern and southern hemispheres, the circumference of the earth (the distance for 360°) from the map reading at each latitude, the circumference at that latitude based on a spherical earth (yes, I know it's not a perfect sphere!) and the circumference at that latitude based on a Flat Earth Ice Wall Map.

The "Flat Earth Circumference @ Latitude" is based on the 24,900 mile overall diameter of the "known earth" as in the Wiki, The Ice Wall. The circumferences are then simple "pro-rated" as the meridians on the "FE Ice Wall map" are simply radial lines.

Latitude
   

km/deg @ Lat
   
Map
Circum@Lat
   
Ideal Globe
Circum@lat
   
Flat Earth Map
Circum@lat
   
Source of "map data"
51.0°
   
70.3 km/deg
   
25,300 km
   
25,200 km
   
27,400 km
   US 1887 map
43.0°
   
81.7 km/deg
   
29,400 km
   
29,300 km
   
33,000 km
   US 1887 map
35.0°
   
91.4 km/deg
   
32,900 km
   
32,800 km
   
38,600 km
   US 1887 map
0.0°
   
109.7 km/deg
   
39,500 km
   
40,100 km
   
63,200 km
   Times Atlas map
-20.0°
   
102.1 km/deg
   
36,700 km
   
37,700 km
   
77,200 km
   Times Atlas map
-34.0°
   
92.0 km/deg
   
33,200 km
   
33,200 km
   
87,100 km
   1855 Australian map
-45.0°
   
79.2 km/deg
   
28,300 km
   
28,300 km
   
94,800 km
   Times Atlas map
-55.0°
   
65.5 km/deg
   
23,600 km
   
23,000 km
   
101,800 km
   Times Atlas map
The 1887 US survey map and the 1855 Australian map are very high resolution accurate maps, but the Times Atlas is not such a large scale and not as accurate. Also the figures are scaled (quite accurately) from scanned paper maps, so very high accuracy is not expected. Nevertheless most of the circumferences are within 1% of the expected value for the globe (The "Times Atlas" is a bit out at high southern latitudes - not unexpected for a flat map).

These were the maps used:

Map of Australia 1855
   

USA Topographcial Survey-1888
   

South America Times Atlas

These measurements can be repeated anywhere on earth you like. In many cases, if you have a straight E-W stretch of road you can verify the results yourself. No great accuracy is needed, as the differences between a globe and the flat earth are massive!

But, unless you seriously doubt maps that have been in use for many years, the circumference of the earth gets less as we move North or South from the equator.
To me (as William Carpenter might have said): "this is an incontrovertible proof that the Earth is a globe."


[1] Any navigator would think it ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 11:16:14 AM by rabinoz »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Latitudinal lines south of equator
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2016, 12:21:19 PM »
You should take that post, edit it to be a stand-alone topic (instead of an in-line reply) and drop it in the Round Earth Information Repository thread.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Latitudinal lines south of equator
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2016, 10:58:21 PM »
You should take that post, edit it to be a stand-alone topic (instead of an in-line reply) and drop it in the Round Earth Information Repository thread.
Thanks, I must get on to that - when I get "a round tuit"
.

I did this on the "other site", and predictably Flat Earthers gave meaningless responses about all surveyors being Masons and lies about Captain Cook.

This sort of thing:
Captain cook clocked the southern circumference at 67,000 miles which is consistent with a flat plane. Also, geodetic surveying has been refuted as a credible source of info. No doubt they used telescopes for centuries and would have quickly seen that there is no curvature with the equation given at 8 inches × distance squared. They would have also quickly noticed that boats don't disappear behind curvature when sailing off into the horizon. Geodetic surveying is also a Masonic created. They lied about the poles and curvature. No curve means no ball

Talk about all the sheepies being indoctrinated - they must be wearing blinkers!