Distance of Tropic of capricorn
« on: November 16, 2018, 01:57:28 PM »
In a flat earth, how can the Tropic of capricorn have less circumference than the equator?

If you think that the latitudes in the southern hemisphere (assuming north pole is the center of the earth) are actually larger than the equator, then that's easily testable. (you can look at flight times in the southern hemisphere).

Is not possible for concentric circles to get bigger then smaller on a flat plane.

Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2018, 09:58:45 PM »
No responses?

Curiosity File

Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2018, 10:02:51 PM »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 658
    • View Profile
Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2018, 11:14:02 PM »
In a flat earth, how can the Tropic of capricorn have less circumference than the equator?

If you think that the latitudes in the southern hemisphere (assuming north pole is the center of the earth) are actually larger than the equator, then that's easily testable. (you can look at flight times in the southern hemisphere).

Is not possible for concentric circles to get bigger then smaller on a flat plane.

The predicted travel times/distances of the flat earth model shaped like a circle with the north pole in the center not matching up with real observed travel times and distances has been discussed at great length. These should answer all of your questions.

I would say you are one of the more reasonable FE'ers.  I am curious how you feel about the old flight times arguments?   Its pretty well documented how fast and far flights go so it should be pretty easy to rough in a map even if it has single digit percentage errors.  Still better than what we have now

This has been discussed so many times. I was also VERY curious about it. I got all the responses from a flight time superthread. Here's a link:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0




-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 180 degrees the earth is flat.
-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 179.99984 degrees the earth is slightly concave.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121615#msg121615



-Distances between two cities which are far apart is unknown
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121996#msg121996


-Flight GPS systems are inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441


-GPS systems are based on a round earth therefore will give measurements/distances which support a round earth.
-Aircraft are using instruments which assume round earth coordinates which will support a round earth.
-There is no flat earth map.
-The difference in flight time is based off of flight speed which has yet to be proven.
-The airplane speed and range is based off round systems therefore will give speeds and ranges which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122359#msg122359


-plane speed measurements are unreliable
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122364#msg122364

-there are no flat earth flight programs, systems, GPS etc because the flat earth aircraft navigation fund is nonexistent.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122369#msg122369


-Triangulation as a measurement of distance can be inaccurate because the "known" locations used for triangulation are based on a round earth system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122410#msg122410


-there are almost an infinite number of continental configurations (If a flight disproves flat earth continental configuration 23985729387592873 you then need to test continental configuration 23985729387592874).
-Groundspeed measurement instruments use a round earth coordinate system therefore will give results which support a round earth
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122411#msg122411


-proof is needed that mile measurements on a highway are accurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122423#msg122423

-Google maps is based on a round earth coordinate system
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122433#msg122433

-any navigation system based on longitude and latitude is a round earth navigation system (which is most likely used in all navigation systems)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122655#msg122655

-any map, navigation, or measurement system which uses Latitude and Longitude in any way is inaccurate
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122664#msg122664

-That's not the map of the earth (a variant of there is no map of the earth)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122672#msg122672

Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2018, 04:02:26 AM »
Thanks for the lengthy supply.

A quick summation of your argument would be that 1) there is no singular flat earth map to prove wrong and that 2) the distances between places are measured incorrectly because they are based off of a round earth assumption. Correct me if that's a misrepresentation of your argument.

First, I would like to address the idea that there's not a singular map to disprove. If we could prove that concentric circles moving further away from a single point (the north pole is simple, but it can be any point) start to get smaller in circumference, then that would disprove a flat earth, regardless of how the map is drawn. I hope we can agree on that before we even get to the measuring phase. If not, I could try to flesh out a proof.

For the measurement, I'm not sure what method would be the most convincing for you, but I'm open to suggestions. I propose the following: have a central reference point, ie the north pole. Draw an imaginary ray in one direction and another perpendicular to it. Measure the shortest possible distance between the two rays every 500 miles. If the distance between the rays starts to slow down and then shrink, then that would disprove flat earth. If you agree with the method, then we can try to figure out a satisfactory way to get the measurements. If not, please help me understand where I'm wrong.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2018, 04:04:22 AM by Donttrollme »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 658
    • View Profile
Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2018, 07:20:11 AM »
First, I would like to address the idea that there's not a singular map to disprove. If we could prove that concentric circles moving further away from a single point (the north pole is simple, but it can be any point) start to get smaller in circumference, then that would disprove a flat earth, regardless of how the map is drawn. I hope we can agree on that before we even get to the measuring phase. If not, I could try to flesh out a proof.

For the measurement, I'm not sure what method would be the most convincing for you, but I'm open to suggestions. I propose the following: have a central reference point, ie the north pole. Draw an imaginary ray in one direction and another perpendicular to it. Measure the shortest possible distance between the two rays every 500 miles. If the distance between the rays starts to slow down and then shrink, then that would disprove flat earth. If you agree with the method, then we can try to figure out a satisfactory way to get the measurements. If not, please help me understand where I'm wrong.

There is no flat earth measurement system which could be used to measure such distances.
There is no flat earth circumference measurement system.
You would need to use something like a yard stick.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2018, 09:50:33 AM »
There is no flat earth measurement system which could be used to measure such distances.
There is no flat earth circumference measurement system.
You would need to use something like a yard stick.
But as I frequently have pointed out, geodesic systems of measurement, which are essentially a very long tape measure or yardstick, are indifferent to whether the earth is flat or not. Likewise, flight times and assumptions about speed are independent of the shape of the earth.

Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2018, 02:33:22 PM »
First, I would like to address the idea that there's not a singular map to disprove. If we could prove that concentric circles moving further away from a single point (the north pole is simple, but it can be any point) start to get smaller in circumference, then that would disprove a flat earth, regardless of how the map is drawn. I hope we can agree on that before we even get to the measuring phase. If not, I could try to flesh out a proof.

For the measurement, I'm not sure what method would be the most convincing for you, but I'm open to suggestions. I propose the following: have a central reference point, ie the north pole. Draw an imaginary ray in one direction and another perpendicular to it. Measure the shortest possible distance between the two rays every 500 miles. If the distance between the rays starts to slow down and then shrink, then that would disprove flat earth. If you agree with the method, then we can try to figure out a satisfactory way to get the measurements. If not, please help me understand where I'm wrong.

There is no flat earth measurement system which could be used to measure such distances.
There is no flat earth circumference measurement system.
You would need to use something like a yard stick.


Before we talk about how to obtain the measurements, I want to know if you at least agree that if the circles do start to shrink in size as they radiate out, then that would disprove flat earth. If we agree on that, then we can talk about the reliability of the measurements without backtracking.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2018, 02:38:39 PM by Donttrollme »

HorstFue

Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2018, 07:16:20 PM »
There is no flat earth measurement system which could be used to measure such distances.
There is no flat earth circumference measurement system.
You would need to use something like a yard stick.
Great R. in "Earth not Globe" found a way: He used itineraries.
Looks like he accepts longitude values but no latitude values.
... and he terrible failed!
s.a. The true form and magnitude of earth, by Samuel Rowbotham
So in summary we have
    * Presented evidence that shows the sailed distance from England to Cape Town as about 8,000 miles, whereas the calculated radius of Flat Earth is only 5224 statute miles. Not to mention, that Ireland/England is about 2,500 miles south of the North Pole (which also  can be found in this chapter of EnaG) and Cape Town also is way north of Antarctica.
    * And the ridiculous result, that Ireland is only 1164 miles north of Cape Town.

i found a nice example, which might be useful in this direction: The Trans-Australian Railway
This railway is known for world longest dead-straight track 487km, 297 statue miles, 258.1nm
between
Loongana   Coordinates: 30°56′46″S 127°02′17″E
Ooldea         Coordinates   30°27′33″S 131°50′08″E

Difference in longitude is 4.795° for 258.1nm, gives a total circumference derived from the railway track at 30.7°S: 19377nm (22303 statute miles)
It's not exactly what RET would predict but close, about 5% error: 18572nm

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 658
    • View Profile
Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2019, 05:11:28 PM »
First, I would like to address the idea that there's not a singular map to disprove. If we could prove that concentric circles moving further away from a single point (the north pole is simple, but it can be any point) start to get smaller in circumference, then that would disprove a flat earth, regardless of how the map is drawn. I hope we can agree on that before we even get to the measuring phase. If not, I could try to flesh out a proof.

For the measurement, I'm not sure what method would be the most convincing for you, but I'm open to suggestions. I propose the following: have a central reference point, ie the north pole. Draw an imaginary ray in one direction and another perpendicular to it. Measure the shortest possible distance between the two rays every 500 miles. If the distance between the rays starts to slow down and then shrink, then that would disprove flat earth. If you agree with the method, then we can try to figure out a satisfactory way to get the measurements. If not, please help me understand where I'm wrong.

There is no flat earth measurement system which could be used to measure such distances.
There is no flat earth circumference measurement system.
You would need to use something like a yard stick.


Before we talk about how to obtain the measurements, I want to know if you at least agree that if the circles do start to shrink in size as they radiate out, then that would disprove flat earth. If we agree on that, then we can talk about the reliability of the measurements without backtracking.

The Flat earth community disagrees on many things. I'm sure this is one of them.