THE GLOBE FAILS AGAIN Flat-Earth
My buddy and fellow Southerner Jon Adams disproving the globe yet again. He mentions the work of another familiar astronomer at 7:20 :)
curvature of the "globe" is false
This video discusses the following calculations (my own) that prove beyond mathematical doubt that the "globe" is ridiculously absurd.
(
)
Yet another simple proof of FLAT EARTH and the absurdity of the "globe." Can you work the Pythagorean Theorem? Can you calculate using trigonometry? The false "globe" requires an elevation of 194 miles ABOVE SEAL LEVEL between LA, CA and NYC per the diagram below, updated using the straight-line distance of 2450 miles between LA, CA and NYC. This calculation provides yet another simple and irrefutable method of comparing the surface of the earth required by globe geometry with the observed flat earth using 10th grade math, i.e., the Pythagorean identities. The diagram below contains all the information necessary to calculate the required height of the supposed surface of the curve above the elevation of flat earth, represented by h. The following series of Pythagorean identity equations allow us to find h, which is the difference between the top of the curve (radius) at center and the vertical leg of the triangle in the diagram. Credit to Jon Adams for the concept.
d = 2450 (distance from LA, CA to NYC)
d1 = 1225 (half of d, and the horizontal leg of the triangle)
- The line between LA and NYC represents sea level, which is a level line between the two cities, because water is always FLAT on its surface. If the ocean extended from the beach at LA to NYC, the surface would create a level PLANE.
r = x + h (x represents the vertical leg of the triangle, center of the circle to the horizontal line, h represents the height of the supposed curve above the horizontal line, which is the required elevation of globe earth above flat earth)
Task: find x then h (all in miles)
sin(a) = d1/r
a = sin(-1)d2/r
a = 18 degreescosa = x/r
x = rcos(18)
x = 3766h = r - x = 3960 - 3766
h = 194 miles ABOVE SEA LEVEL
By this simple calculation, the elevation of the midpoint between LA, CA and NYC - somewhere in eastern KS/NE/OK, let's say Kansas City - MUST be 194 miles ABOVE the sea level of LA, CA and NYC.
This interestingly yields a different value for h than the 8 in/mi^2 formula, but it nevertheless provides a number excessively larger than the known highest point above sea level, Mt. Everest, at 29,029 ft and less than six miles, which is 188 miles lower than the geometrically required curve height of 194. And all of this using simple Pythagorean identities.
Augmenting this is the elevation at Kansas City, MO, which is roughly at the center of the U.S. and just about the highest point of h in the diagram (elevation at Tulsa, OK is 722 ft and Beaver Crossing, NE is 1467, 0.278 of a mile). The elevation at Kansas City of 910 feet - 0.172 of a mile - thoroughly refutes this math and the conclusion that
THE GLOBE FAILS AGAIN.
It is mathematically absurd.
IPS, Tim or whatever you go by now, there are serious problems with this video and it is certainly not a globe debunk. The most obvious is that the presenter assumes the hidden or obscured value from the curve calculator should match with the sagitta or (h) of his own calculations. They are not the same thing. Other curve calculators like metabunk show the sagitta as "bulge". For this scenario the bulge works out to 188 ft, exactly what his math showed. At least he did that math right, but towards the end of the video he completely loses me with absurd reasoning based on his first big mistake.
The text here confirms a complete misrepresentation of the globe model by the author. I can go into detail but I shouldn't have to and don't have the time. The first glober that watches this will be all over it explaining the flaws in detail and probably use it to continue making flat earthers look like they 'just don't understand' the globe model.
This video only has 9 views on Youtube as of now and the channel has no subscribers. I'll politely let him know where I think he is wrong and hope that he sees it and deletes or updates the video before the flat Earth bandwagon catches wind.
"The text here confirms a complete misrepresentation of the globe model by the author. I can go into detail but I shouldn't have to and don't have the time."
do it. prove your point os shut up.
I shouldn't have to because I think the Earth is flat. I thought you did too. Apparently not since you would know that promoting "proofs" based on faulty understanding of the globe model, are used against the movement. Or is that the plan? Did you write this article?
I like proof! Check out my stuff too when you get the chance. https://steemit.com/thoughts/@mattzoidhead/how-did-it-happen-some-crazy-memories