Surface Area of Earth, a comparison
« on: May 30, 2018, 07:32:38 PM »
Hello everybody,
just got curious about how big earth is in terms of square miles. FE have a flat disk with a radius of 12250 miles  as announced on this web site. Well, pi*radius*radius results in 471435247 square miles.

Contrasting that we the RE folks : the mean diameter of the globe is 3960 miles. The surface area of a sphere is calculated by 4*pi*radius*radius =   197969797 square miles.

Ratio : 2.4 approximately.

Curiously enough, the distance from North to South pole for the round earth is pi*radius =  12440 miles matching the radius of the FE actually, there i a good reason why the two are almost equal, if you know some math. But it is comforting to know the FE and RE folks agree to distances on earth as long as we are measuring in the North-South direction.
Back to the surface area. The size of the property I am living on is known rather accurately and so is that of my neighbors. Adding them all up gives the size of my county, the sum of counties gives the size of my state and the sum of the states gives us the square miles of the good old USA : 3797000 square miles. You can do a rough check on that by travelling east-west and north to south using mapquest and multiplying : as I said a rough estimate.
In the same fashion we can verify the surface area of all the other continents of course with the exception of Antarctica. There all our methods of detecting the shape and measuring the land areas fail.

With the area covered by the oceans the story is not quite as easy. Nevertheless, they have been navigated upon and measured for a few hundred years by now over and over again and many ships are on the high seas as you read this. Before the age of GPS we have been relying on maps of the oceans which showed with sufficient accuracy not only the directions but also distances. And were the maps proved to be inaccurate and led to a disaster they were quickly improved upon - for a few hundred years by now.

Given all of that I just cannot see that the size of the flat earth, radius of 12250 miles, can be correct, not even approximately.  What do you think ?



Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2018, 07:07:20 AM »
The same issue you have with the length of the equator. If r_E is the mean radius of the round earth, than the length of the round-earth equator is 2*pi*r_E. And the distance between the two poles is then roughly half of it: pi*r_E. And therefor the distance from the north pole to the equator is 0.5*pi*r_E.

Therefor the flat-earth equator has a length of 2*pi*0.5*pi*r_E = pi^2 * r_E. If you compare the two results,you see that the FE equator is longer by a factor of pi/2.

That's one of the the reasons why it is so essential for flat-earth believers to deny the possibility to measure distance over sea. Because that way you can account this factor of about 1.5 completely to the width of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.     

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2018, 12:16:58 PM »
I have on a number of occasions shown that it is possible to measure distance across the ocean to within a few percent accuracy, therefore I would suggest that the calculated distances across oceans like the pacific and Atlantic, Indian oceans etc are pretty accurate, and are not in error by more that 2%

The distances we measure are not reliant on round earth or flat earth shape, as the equipment is calibrated and verified to the earth, whatever shape it is.

Therefore i can state with confit-Denver that the distances across the oceans as calculated are correct.

Now all that needs doing is to plot them on a planer surface, and we have a model of the flat earth..........

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2018, 12:24:59 PM »
And you seriously think they will accept this? Even if you would be able to walk over water and measure the distances by hand with a ruler they would not believe it, because how could you be sure that you are walking always directly in straight line? You know this kind of argumentation e.g. when you argue about size and shape and position of the South Pole?   

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1083
    • View Profile
Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2018, 12:34:40 PM »
And you seriously think they will accept this? Even if you would be able to walk over water and measure the distances by hand with a ruler they would not believe it, because how could you be sure that you are walking always directly in straight line? You know this kind of argumentation e.g. when you argue about size and shape and position of the South Pole?   
I thought we did make some progress with distances as estimated by flight times. No flight time is individually accurate, but take 100s of reported and verifiable flight times, then correlate them with predicted times using RE model. That came out pretty well.

And there is, as I keep pointing out, the predicted distance between points of equal latitude and different longitude.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2018, 12:49:01 PM »
And you seriously think they will accept this? Even if you would be able to walk over water and measure the distances by hand with a ruler they would not believe it, because how could you be sure that you are walking always directly in straight line? You know this kind of argumentation e.g. when you argue about size and shape and position of the South Pole?   

Yes i know, but of the more than 1/2 dozen times i have explained it in different threads there has been not a single objection or dispute to what i have written, so I am beginning to believe that what I have shown is accepted.......

I can provide distances from my ships logs, showing measured against calculated distances over a period of time, etc.

That along with flight times should be enough data to try to plot on a plane surface?

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2018, 01:04:45 PM »
The trouble here is there is no possible flat earth map which correlates with known distances or flight times.
They just can't all be made to sit on a flat plane.

The only way of squaring that circle is to assert that the distances between places aren't known accurately.
Which means claiming that planes don't know how fast they're flying or how far, that boats don't know either.
It's all very silly when we have a airline and shipping industry which demonstrably gets people around reliably.
There are ships which lay cables across the Atlantic so clearly have to know how much cable they need and measure how much they use.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2018, 02:05:08 PM »
Trying to dispute it is rather pointless and clutching at straws really. Saying things like no aircraft knows how fast it flies.....etc etc.

I can see that it is necessary for the flat earth era to believe it, as if they were to budge an inch then it would be pretty much proved that the earth could not be flat.

Also arguing that there is no known shape or layout of the oceans and continents  is also a desperate measure to prop up the FE theory.

As there is no one model or representation of a map, it is then possible to try to argue the indefensible, as any flat earth map produced will be discounted, or shown as a representation only.

In Enag there are a few diagrams showing the world, such as figure 54, so if there are no known maps, that means EnaG again is proved wrong.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.