[KAL_9000]

Copy and paste the method used to verify the spherical coordinate calculated distance between locations like New York and Paris please... Thanks!

No need to copy and paste. We can do it right now.

Globe Earth model and Flat Earth polar map agree in one thing: distances from North pole are equal on both.

Latitude of Paris is 48.85 degrees north. It means 5427.8 km from Equator, and 4572.2 km from North pole.
Latitude of New York is 40.73 degrees north. It means 4525.5 km from Equator, and 5474.5 km from North pole.
Angle between their meridians is 2.35 degrees east + 74.00 degrees west = 76.35 degrees.

If Earth is flat we would have simple triangle with two known sides and the angle between them.

Third side would be SQRT(4572.2^2 + 5474.5^2 - 2*4572.2*5474.5*cos(76.35)) = 6249.9 km
If we extend both meridians from North pole to Equator, we have another triangle, with two sides of 10 000 km each and angle between them again 76.35 degrees.
Tetive connecting the two points at Equator is 12 361 km long.

Measured ground speed of subsolar point for equinox shows that circumference of Equator is 24 900 miles, or 40 072 km.
It gives length of 76.35 degrees arc to be 76.35 * 40072 / 360 = 8498.6 km long.

So, arc is nearly 8500 km long, and its tetive is 12 360 km long ?
Can arc be shorter than its tetive ? ? ?
Does Flat Earth model work?

Maybe "perspective" ?
kekeke

This, Tom.

You require unfathomably low standards of what constitutes "proof" for things you agree with, and absurdly high standards of what constitutes "proof" for things you disagree with.

(Thanks for writing out the proof, Macarios.)

[Macarios]

Another example:

Flat Earth and Globe Earth both claim that distance from North pole to Equatoris 10 000 kilometers.
(Meridian through Paris was divided into 10 million equal pieces and that's how meter was defined.)

If the Earth was flat then circumference of Equator would be 2*3.14159*10 000 = 62832 km.
In reality we have diferent measurements.

Let's go to Kalimantan (Borneo). There are two convenient places at the Equator there.
Bontang is at 117.476 degrees east. Measured and confirmed.
Pontianak is at 109.344 degrees east. Also measured and confirmed.
Linear distance between them is 905.17 km. Measured and confirmed.
Angular distance between them is 8.132 degrees. See their longitudes and subtract.
Well known thing that Sun always goes 15 degrees per hour helps us determine ground speed of equinoctial Sun projection (subsolar point).
905.17 * 15 / 8.132 = 1669.64 km/h
1669.64 km/h * 24 h = 40 071.36 km.

Flat Earth model gives circumference of Equator to be 62 832 km, and reality gives 40 072 km.

How "accurate" is Flat Earth model ?

[Pete Svarrior]

This car looks fast:

First things first, that car doesn't look fast at all. You may wish to learn more about cars.

Secondly, your analogy is entirely fallacious. The appearance of the Earth may be judged by looking at the Earth. The speed at which it may or may not be moving through space can not, neither can its temperature. For your argument to be analogous, you'd have to uphold that the car is not mostly cyan and orange, that it does not have >= 2 wheels, or that it does not have the number "36" written on at least one of its doors.

[Ratboy]

The same kind of questions reappear here.
One of the best ways to tell how fast planes fly is to drive somewhere and fly back.
They figured out how far New York to Paris is when they laid the first transatlantic cable more than 100 years ago.  A rich guy is not going to pay for extra cable to loop under the ocean just to confuse people that want to know the distance.  I do not think a pilot is going to circle over the ocean to burn time and fuel before landing in Hawaii. Planes do run out of fuel sometimes and I would guess they want to land first chance they get. And these planes have windows and GPS screens.  When you fly over land you can see the actual earthly features that are shown on the screen.  And you can see where the sun is.  Easy to tell when a plane is circling.
It would be very difficult to have all the baggage guys, pilots and people booking flights to remember which flights are fake times and which ones are real times. The ones over land that you can drive have to be real.  The first airline that could cut 1/2 hour off flights would get all the business.  They only give you those tiny bags of pretzels and yet we believe they are going to waste thousands of litres of fuel.
How can a flat earth model have a south pole with straight lines of longitude?  If they curve this goes back to ignoring the people that live south of the equator.  People in the north get straight lines and to hell with those in the south. 
I had one more thing, but I forget what it was.  Maybe it is this.  Get two kids with yo-yos.  Have one spin it on a horizontal axis and the other on a vertical axis.  Look at the yo yos.  Which one looks more like the movement of the sun?

[supaluminus]

This car looks fast:

First things first, that car doesn't look fast at all. You may wish to learn more about cars.

... I wanna know why you think that car doesn't look fast.

[Pete Svarrior]

... I wanna know why you think that car doesn't look fast.

It appears to be stationary.

[supaluminus]

... I wanna know why you think that car doesn't look fast.

It appears to be stationary.

You don't think you're playing word games there? Semantics? Splitting hairs?

To say "this is a fast car" applies whether it's stationary or moving, in common parlance. I think you know that, but I could be mistaken. It's a little bewildering to think that you didn't, and you just made an honest mistake, but I can accept that.

What wouldn't be as forgivable is if you do know how that expression is used, and you're pretending to be incompetent, pretending not to know the difference, for what I don't know.

Sort of like the false equivalency you made earlier, reducing my carefully considered rebuttal to "nuh uh." Then, as now, I want to believe you're either mistaken or being too hasty, but I'm having trouble reconciling that desire.

In any case, do you want to expand, or is that honestly the reason you believe, in your heart of hearts, that that car doesn't "look" fast, as 6or1/2Dozen originally said?

[Pete Svarrior]

You don't think you're playing word games there? Semantics? Splitting hairs?

It was a joke. The substance of my argument followed immediately afterwards. Judging characteristics entirely unrelated to appearance by looking at things is not analogous to looking at things to figure out what they look like.

[supaluminus]

You don't think you're playing word games there? Semantics? Splitting hairs?

It was a joke. The substance of my argument followed immediately afterwards. Judging characteristics entirely unrelated to appearance by looking at things is not analogous to looking at things to figure out what they look like.

That was never the question. The argument was, "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X." In other words, saying "the flat horizon LOOKS flat, so the rest of the world IS flat," is not logically consistent for the same reason as the car analogy.

The car indeed "looks" fast. It "looks" like a sports car, and I don't know who's driving around a slow sports car in your neck of the woods, but to the rest of the world, most sports cars run fast.

It doesn't matter that looks can be deceiving either; this is not a contradiction of that principle. This is simply saying that we can make a reasonable assumption, based on the law of averages, that this car, when in motion, is most likely very fast.

It isn't until 6or1/2Dozen provides us with more information that the judgment by appearances falls apart. Up until that point, nobody would argue with you for saying "that car looks like it runs fast." The same principle plays out when you take a surface interpretation like zeteticism (haha "surface" interpretation, flat earth, zeteticism, puns) and start to add more and more information to the picture. It does not remain consistent, just like the first-glance and TOTALLY REASONABLE assertion that "this car looks fast."

That's the whole point. The problem with zeteticism is that it LACKS INFORMATION to arrive at consistent and sound conclusions, never mind the internal contradictions in a book like "Earth Not A Globe." When we're tethered to the earth and limited by our ability to use an elevator or climb a mountain, we only get to see so much. Likewise, even watching distant objects becomes unreliable until we add a telescope, or binoculars, and again give ourselves more information to go by.

This is the principle, outlined in step-by-step terms. This is the point 6or1/2Dozen was trying to make, if he doesn't mind me speaking on his behalf. This is the point you have to either agree is sensible and reasonable, or demonstrate why it isn't.

Is that more transparent? Are we communicating, or just talking past one another?

[Macarios]

This car looks fast:

First things first, that car doesn't look fast at all. You may wish to learn more about cars.

Secondly, your analogy is entirely fallacious. The appearance of the Earth may be judged by looking at the Earth. The speed at which it may or may not be moving through space can not, neither can its temperature. For your argument to be analogous, you'd have to uphold that the car is not mostly cyan and orange, that it does not have >= 2 wheels, or that it does not have the number "36" written on at least one of its doors.

IF the car DOESN'T go fast, it doesn't mean it CAN'T GO fast. :-)
But if something just "looks like duck" it isn't enough.
It has to "walk like duck" and "quack like duck" as well.

On short distances Earth "looks like duck (flat)", but it doesn't "walk like flat and quack like flat".
When you measure, you see it to be curved.

GPS is introduced just recently. Before that every travel was dependant on navigation by sun and stars.
Navigators, just like astronomers, knew stars and constellations very well.

GPS is reason why less people buy sextants, or only have it "just in case".
Some don't care. If they lose GPS, they will use radio. So, price of sextants went down.
You can buy marine sextant here: http://www.ebay.com/bhp/marine-sextant
Prices can be as low as $22, or as high as $600 or more.
You can easily learn how to use it. Google for it. You will also need some practice.

You can read astronomical data on numerous web sites.
If data is wrong anyone who can measure anything would gladly expose it.
Also, if someone falsely "expose" something, others will happily correct them.
So, I believe you can trust the data there, but if you don't, you can have your own sextant and check it out.
Prices given above show that virtually anyone can.

People bragging about being investigative (zetetic) give me confidence that they would do it.

Earth on short distances look flat. Yes? No?
It is "yes", or Flat Earthers wouldn't use it as "proof".

But navigators were covering long distances as well.
Distances much greater than plane sailing approximation can satisfy.
For shorter distances between Greek islands error of 1/2 mile is acceptable, because
your destination will still be in the view with or without such error.
But acros the Atlantic, and later Pacific, plane sailing will give much biggere error and you
won't come close enough to have known area around your destination within your view.
You would have to be more precise than that.

By using sextant navigators measured degrees of latitude.
They measured angles of well known stars and calculated position.
If that was inaccurate they wouldn't be able to travel accurately, not to speak of safe world circumnavigation.
Pacific ocean is almost half of Earth's surface. You have to be VERY precise to reach desired island.
With poor navigation you easily get lost.

To convert degrees into distances easier they defined nautical mile.
One nautical mile is distance between two verticals with angle between them of exactly ONE ARCMINUTE.
It is 1852 meters.

That way to travel one degree you go exactly 60 nautical miles.
If at one place you measure 5° 14' more or less than another, their distance is 5x60 + 14 = 314 nautical miles.
(Ofcourse, you measure "horizontal" and "vertical" angular distances and just calculate linear distance using non-Euclidean Pythagoras.)

As we can see, Earth "looks like duck", but doesn't "walk like duck", nor "quack like duck".

If you don't believe it, find long road going north-south, measure 1852 meters segment, and then measure angle of Polaris from each end.
Mark the diference.

If the Earth was flat, your angular difference will vary with your distance from North pole.
At 1000 miles from North pole, the difference is 1.92 arcminutes.
At 3000 miles from North pole, the diference is 1.006 arcminutes.
At 5000 miles from North pole, the difference is 0.6 arcminutes.

If the Earth was globe your measurement would be independent of your location.

Navigators traveled all over and everywhere one nautical mile is ONE ARCMINUTE.
If it wasn't, if it was variable, who would care to even think of accepting nautical mile as distance unit?

[Pete Svarrior]

That was never the question. The argument was, "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X."

And that's why the argument was so flawed. A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X. You can make arguments about how you'd need to get farther away from the Earth, get a wider sub-section of the image. You could argue that trying to infer the bigger picture from a smaller part is inconclusive. There are many points you can make here.

But to claim that something that looks flat is not flat is not the same as claiming that a car that's been designed to imitate another car doesn't go fast.

[totallackey]

Kansas is flat.

Florida is even flatter.

As is Illinois.

[Macarios]

Kansas is flat.

Florida is even flatter.

As is Illinois.

Yes, it is. But within curvature of Earth.

We measured a west-east profile across Kansas taken from merged 1:250,000 scale
digital elevation model (DEM) data from the United States Geological Survey. In general,
the spacing between adjacent elevation points on the landscape transects was approximately
90 meters. We extracted surface transects and flatness estimates from the Kansas and pancake
DEM data using a geographic information system.

(from http://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html)

As you can see, Kansas is flat measured from sea level, not from flat plane.

[AATW]

Kansas's "flatness" was also measured against a pancake from IHOP as a joke but the report also states that because of the scale for any state to be less flat than the pancake it would have to have a mountain higher than Everest on it.

[AATW]

None of what you posted directly tells us that the earth must be a globe and cannot be anything else.

You know, I might just agree with you about that. There could conceivably be other explanations for everything I've said. BUT your current flat earth model as outlined in your Wiki isn't one of them.
Is there one Pole or two? Are there two spinning celestial systems or one?
You guys don't even seem to be able to agree about very fundamental things like this. Because, basically, your flat earth model doesn't work.
As I have said more than once, if you want to prove the distance to the moon or sun is as small as you think you could easily do some experiments and triangulation and do so.
Do it tonight. Get a few mates with the right equipment in different US cities which you can agree the distances between, take observations at the same time and do the "math".
If the moon and sun are as close as you suppose then you can start to think about how it stays in the sky, what causes it to keep changing orbit so the seasons work and how a sun 3,000 miles above us can ever set (I know you're going to say "perspective" but I have proven you don't understand perspective so you might want to think again there.

[totallackey]

Kansas is flat.

Florida is even flatter.

As is Illinois.

Yes, it is. But within curvature of Earth.

We measured a west-east profile across Kansas taken from merged 1:250,000 scale
digital elevation model (DEM) data from the United States Geological Survey. In general,
the spacing between adjacent elevation points on the landscape transects was approximately
90 meters. We extracted surface transects and flatness estimates from the Kansas and pancake
DEM data using a geographic information system.

(from http://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html)

As you can see, Kansas is flat measured from sea level, not from flat plane.

Kansas's "flatness" was also measured against a pancake from IHOP as a joke but the report also states that because of the scale for any state to be less flat than the pancake it would have to have a mountain higher than Everest on it.

Neither reply here addresses the issue of curvature.

In other words, there is no measurable curvature found in the State of Kansas, nor Florida, nor Illinois.

[AATW]

It seems you don't understand what elevation means.
It is the level above sea level, the curve of the earth is taken into account.
The sea would be regarded as "flat" because it is, by definition, at sea level.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't curve. The fact it does curve is proven by the video I posted in the "Beyond The Sea" thread.

[totallackey]

It seems you don't understand what elevation means.
It is the level above sea level, the curve of the earth is taken into account.
The sea would be regarded as "flat" because it is, by definition, at sea level.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't curve. The fact it does curve is proven by the video I posted in the "Beyond The Sea" thread.

The graphical representation of elevation levels for all three states demonstrate no curve.

[Curious Squirrel]

It seems you don't understand what elevation means.
It is the level above sea level, the curve of the earth is taken into account.
The sea would be regarded as "flat" because it is, by definition, at sea level.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't curve. The fact it does curve is proven by the video I posted in the "Beyond The Sea" thread.

The graphical representation of elevation levels for all three states demonstrate no curve.

*whoosh*
Elevation is graphed against sea level. IF the Earth is flat, this indeed shows these states are flat. IF the Earth is round, it simply shows the states follow the gentle curve of the surface of the Earth. Unchanging elevation proves nothing about the shape of the Earth. Unchanging elevation simply shows a state/place keeps a steady level with regards to it's distance to sea level. For a flat Earth, this will mean the place is flat. For a round Earth, this will mean the place has a gentle curve following the curvature of the surface.

[Ratboy]

Proving Kansas is on a curved world is easy.  I am getting sad that one has to repeat the same proofs on each thread.  If the world was flat, the canola farmers in Kansas could easily have their farms on square mile sections of land and it would have been an easy task to split up the state. Unlike the older parts of the US or particularly England or France, land was not subject to years of inheritence and strategies to give every landowner access to some trees and a creek and whatnot. 
So when you have advanced survey equipment and new land to divide up, just do it in squares.  However, trying to keep roads and property boundaries north and south creates problems because the earth gets smaller as you go north.  Here is a picture east of Clifton Kansas showing how every so often they shift the roads going north and south when the roads and property lines deviate too much from north / south.  There are fewer farms in each row in western north america as you go north.  Same thing happens in Australia when you go south.