Is the Earth Flat?

[Edwin Wright]

It must be a really big ball if the distance around the earth at the equator is 40,000,000 km!!!

But seriously, how did she scientifically determine the distance covered? Did she just calculate her total distance based on existing paradigm coordinates and mensuration? If so, your argument is perfectly circular (no pun intended).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Talk to Lisa Blair. She managed to circumnavigate Antarctica in a sailboat in just under 93 days last year, a journey of a bit over 30,000 km. Given that the distance around the earth at the equator is 40,000,000km, I believe her journey fulfils your requirements of proving the globe.

40,000 km at the equator.

 

[HantsUK]

What? No, of course. Go down to the sea and watch the ships come in.

Alternatively find an island a few miles away out at sea. At sea level, the island cannot been seen. Climb up the cliff (or go inland up a hill) and the island comes into view. Unlike a ship, most islands are much larger, so easier to see without binoculars. They are also stationary. So, if island goes from not being visible at sea level to being visible from a higher point, it is not because it is now closer! (It will actually be slightly further away - but not enough to make it look smaller).

 

[The Liturgist]

Here's what has to happen (see the excerpt below from my blog post (THE ANTARCTIC TREATY: VEILING REALITY) dated March 4, 2023):

Moving Forward: Beyond The Antarctic Treaty​

Restricted access to the Antarctic land mass (and certainly, to the adjoining firmament-planar earth circumference, i.e. the Southern Circumference at 90° South) notwithstanding, the planar nature of the large-scale structure of the earth’s surface could easily be ascertained by circumnavigating the earth at a specific southern latitude well north of Antarctica or even north of 60° South for that matter. Whereas a spherical or spheroidal large-scale structure of the earth’s surface implies smaller and smaller circumferences of latitudinal parallels with increasing distance south of the Equator, a planar large-scale structure of the earth’s surface implies larger and larger circumferences of latitudinal parallels with increasing distance south of the Equator, culminating with the Southern Circumference at 90° South. Any private or corporate interests with sufficient resources could underwrite a marine expedition to circumnavigate the earth (unimpeded by any land mass) along a specific latitude, say 56° South (i.e., just south of Cape Horn), said expedition being equipped with the technology necessary to precisely determine the circumnavigated distance at that latitude. Obviously, if the measured circumnavigated distance at 56° South is greater than the equatorial circumference calculated under the spheroidal model, then the area of the world south of the Equator is much larger than the area north of the Equator, thereby pointing to the planar large-scale structure of the earth’s surface.

Would anyone be interested in underwriting such an expedition?

As I said, for less than $4,000 per person you could charter a Boeing 747 and fly right over Antarctica.

 

[prodromos]

It must be a really big ball if the distance around the earth at the equator is 40,000,000 km!!!

Another brain fart. That last distance was given in meters. I wrote in kilometers and absentmindedly neglected to do the conversion. Mea culpa.

 

[prodromos]

But seriously, how did she scientifically determine the distance covered? Did she just calculate her total distance based on existing paradigm coordinates and mensuration? If so, your argument is perfectly circular (no pun intended).

"with the technology necessary to precisely determine the circumnavigated distance at that latitude". Her bearing, speed and time. What technology do you propose be used?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Another brain fart. That last distance was given in meters. I wrote in kilometers and absentmindedly neglected to do the conversion. Mea culpa.

Dang, I was really hoping to be able to get away from everyone on a sun sized planet!

 

[The Liturgist]

Dang, I was really hoping to be able to get away from everyone on a sun sized planet!

I myself would prefer to avoid being crushed into a puddle, or worse, into merely something of reduced height. That calls to mind the disturbing transporter malfunction scene in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, where a horrifying mishap (later satirized in Galaxy Quest) led to the famous and quotable line from Star Fleet Command “Enterprise, what we got back didn’t live long, fortunately.” If a solar mass sized planet didn’t flatten us outright, it would at least lead to that.

But I’m pretty sure it would flatten us, and also cook us, unless it had cooled to being an iron star. In such a star, the density is such that the atoms are held apart by electron degeneracy pressure, and although there is an atmosphere, it is less than a millimeter in height.

 

[prodromos]

I myself would prefer to avoid being crushed into a puddle, or worse, into merely something of reduced height. That calls to mind the disturbing transporter malfunction scene in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, where a horrifying mishap (later satirized in Galaxy Quest) led to the famous and quotable line from Star Fleet Command “Enterprise, what we got back didn’t live long, fortunately.” If a solar mass sized planet didn’t flatten us outright, it would at least lead to that.

But I’m pretty sure it would flatten us, and also cook us, unless it had cooled to being an iron star. In such a star, the density is such that the atoms are held apart by electron degeneracy pressure, and although there is an atmosphere, it is less than a millimeter in height.

Hey! It could have been hollow! Aren't there still people who claim the earth is hollow?

 

[The Liturgist]

Hey! It could have been hollow! Aren't there still people who claim the earth is hollow?

Well the problem with it being hollow, or indeed the Earth being hollow, is that the mass of such a large sphere would likely collapse onto the hollow portion resulting in a smaller sphere, for the same reason that there are rocky cores in the center of Uranus and Neptune.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Hey! It could have been hollow! Aren't there still people who claim the earth is hollow?

Well we are in non-mainstream science!

 

[JSRG]

Hey! It could have been hollow! Aren't there still people who claim the earth is hollow?

The world is hollow, and I have touched the sky.

 

[prodromos]

The world is hollow, and I have touched the sky.

You realise that you are going to die now after saying that?

 

[prodromos]

said expedition being equipped with the technology necessary to precisely determine the circumnavigated distance at that latitude

You still haven't responded. What technology would you accept for determining precisely the distance traveled along that latitude?

 

[Aussie Pete]

What you are seeing is not curvature but angular perspective. You will notice that the actual horizon (left to right) is absolutely straight — to the pixel or to whatever degree it can be optically resolved.

The problem with most of the FE explantions is that they do not account for just how big the earth is. Unless you know the distance between the points shown on a picture, it is impossible to work out the curvature. And you will not see it with the naked eye. Add in the errors inherent in the optics of most cameras, and photos also are unreliable.

There is a vast amount of evidence to prove that the earth is a globe. FE people simply reject or explain away the observable facts. If you want a good laugh, check out some of the explantions FE people have for gravity. My favourite is "pressure". Even a 10 year old can understand that pressure applies equally to every point on the surface of an object. But not 40 year old FE people. For some reason in their fantasy world, pressure always pushes things down.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Here's what has to happen (see the excerpt below from my blog post (THE ANTARCTIC TREATY: VEILING REALITY) dated March 4, 2023):

Moving Forward: Beyond The Antarctic Treaty​

Restricted access to the Antarctic land mass (and certainly, to the adjoining firmament-planar earth circumference, i.e. the Southern Circumference at 90° South) notwithstanding, the planar nature of the large-scale structure of the earth’s surface could easily be ascertained by circumnavigating the earth at a specific southern latitude well north of Antarctica or even north of 60° South for that matter. Whereas a spherical or spheroidal large-scale structure of the earth’s surface implies smaller and smaller circumferences of latitudinal parallels with increasing distance south of the Equator, a planar large-scale structure of the earth’s surface implies larger and larger circumferences of latitudinal parallels with increasing distance south of the Equator, culminating with the Southern Circumference at 90° South. Any private or corporate interests with sufficient resources could underwrite a marine expedition to circumnavigate the earth (unimpeded by any land mass) along a specific latitude, say 56° South (i.e., just south of Cape Horn), said expedition being equipped with the technology necessary to precisely determine the circumnavigated distance at that latitude. Obviously, if the measured circumnavigated distance at 56° South is greater than the equatorial circumference calculated under the spheroidal model, then the area of the world south of the Equator is much larger than the area north of the Equator, thereby pointing to the planar large-scale structure of the earth’s surface.

Would anyone be interested in underwriting such an expedition?

A bit of history may help you. Did you know that Sir Francis Drake cicumnavigated the earth in about 1580? It took him 3 years. How many people before him? I don't know, but likely many who are less famous. And since then it's been done countless times. Hint: you can't circumnavigate a flat earth. Pilots will tell you that the earth is a globe. It's not only because they can see it, but they fly different routes that they have to navigate. FE navigation is absurd, because the FE map bears no relation to reality. Only a globe routal planner works in the real world.

And that's why the FE society has members all around the globe.

 

[Edwin Wright]

A bit of history may help you. Did you know that Sir Francis Drake cicumnavigated the earth in about 1580? It took him 3 years. How many people before him? I don't know, but likely many who are less famous. And since then it's been done countless times. Hint: you can't circumnavigate a flat earth. Pilots will tell you that the earth is a globe. It's not only because they can see it, but they fly different routes that they have to navigate. FE navigation is absurd, because the FE map bears no relation to reality. Only a globe routal planner works in the real world.

And that's why the FE society has members all around the globe.

Au contraire, the geometry of the flat earth does not preclude its circumnavigation.

 

[Edwin Wright]

You still haven't responded. What technology would you accept for determining precisely the distance traveled along that latitude?

An inertial navigation system (INS) equipped with an inertial measurement unit (IMU).

 

[Edwin Wright]

If it were not so, as the flat Earthers claim, the entire structure (base and tower body) would diminish to invisibility together rather than the base going before the tower body. I would like to hear a refutation of THAT!

You need to understand basic perspective to realize that the power lines photo DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form suggest earth curvature.

Here’s why:

When you are looking at a long row or train of objects (buildings, lamp posts, transmission towers, etc.) of equivalent height and spacing, every object (or portion thereof) below eye level appears to ascend towards the horizon, whereas every object (or portion thereof) above eye level appears to descend towards the horizon.

If the vertical distance from the eye or camera lens to the lower part of the object train (in this case, the tower bases) is less than the vertical distance from the eye or camera lens to the upper part of the object (in this case, the tower structures), the perspective line from the lower part of the object (i.e., the tower bases) intersects the eye level line (i.e., the line from the eye or camera lens to the horizon) at a distance closer to the observer than the perspective line from the upper part of the object (i.e., the tower structures), What this means is that the vanishing point of the tower bases) is closer than the vanishing point of the tower structures, hence giving the illusion that the lower part of the object has "shrunk" and “disappeared” over the (alleged) curvature. (In the photo you presented, the illusion seems to be enhanced by the tower train appearing to veer to the left in the distance, although this is not germane to the underlying argument.)

The observer in this case is from a vantage point above the tower bases but well below the tower tops. It would be nice to know the actual height of the observer and the (above water) height of the tower bases and tower tops.

It's that simple. Your argument (historically raised in respect of the “disappearing” hulls of ships allegedly due to fictitious earth curvature) was debunked many years ago (actually as far back as the nineteenth century). I am surprised that you even raised the matter.

When I have more time, I will incorporate the above explanation into my website (Plane Geodesy) and will include a suitable drawing to clarify the matter further.

 

[Edwin Wright]

You are not addressing the fact thAt the entire structure (base and tower body) does not diminish to invisibility together due to angular perspective, rather, the base goes before the tower body. How do you explain that?

ou need to understand basic perspective to realize that the power lines photo DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form suggest earth curvature.

Here’s why:

When you are looking at a long row or train of objects (buildings, lamp posts, transmission towers, etc.) of equivalent height and spacing, every object (or portion thereof) below eye level appears to ascend towards the horizon, whereas every object (or portion thereof) above eye level appears to descend towards the horizon.

If the vertical distance from the eye or camera lens to the lower part of the object train (in this case, the tower bases) is less than the vertical distance from the eye or camera lens to the upper part of the object (in this case, the tower structures), the perspective line from the lower part of the object (i.e., the tower bases) intersects the eye level line (i.e., the line from the eye or camera lens to the horizon) at a distance closer to the observer than the perspective line from the upper part of the object (i.e., the tower structures), What this means is that the vanishing point of the tower bases) is closer than the vanishing point of the tower structures, hence giving the illusion that the lower part of the object has "shrunk" and “disappeared” over the (alleged) curvature. (In the photo you presented, the illusion seems to be enhanced by the tower train appearing to veer to the left in the distance, although this is not germane to the underlying argument.)

The observer in this case is from a vantage point above the tower bases but well below the tower tops. It would be nice to know the actual height of the observer and the (above water) height of the tower bases and tower tops.

It's that simple. Your argument (historically raised in respect of the “disappearing” hulls of ships allegedly due to fictitious earth curvature) was debunked many years ago (actually as far back as the nineteenth century). I am surprised that you even raised the matter.

When I have more time, I will incorporate the above explanation into my website (Plane Geodesy) and will include a suitable drawing to clarify the matter further.