Earth curvature help please (My brother-in-law is a flat earther and sent me this video about earth curvature.)

[Idun]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post and I actually only joined to get help with this. My brother-in-law is a flat earther and sent me this video about earth curvature.

Math is not my strong point and I feel a bit bamboozled by it.

I'd like to know if the math checks out on this video:

I also want to know if the math checks out at this earth curvature calculator - is it usable? https://earthcurvature.com/

Thank you. Please hold the ridicule and give me the math, baby.

 

[Idun]

Could I get an approval on this posting? Surely it's not offensive, or too difficult for mathematicians to explain to me as incorrect/correct?

 

[The Highlander]

Could I get an approval on this posting? Surely it's not offensive, or too difficult for mathematicians to explain to me as incorrect/correct?

Hi everyone,

This is my first post and I actually only joined to get help with this. My brother-in-law is a flat earther and sent me this video about earth curvature.

Math is not my strong point and I feel a bit bamboozled by it.

I'd like to know if the math checks out on this video:

I also want to know if the math checks out at this earth curvature calculator - is it usable? https://earthcurvature.com/

Thank you. Please hold the ridicule and give me the math, baby.

Hi

You will get an "approval" for you post(s) if and when a moderator is available to check it. They can't be online 24-7 and there's not many of them currently 'working' on the site so I'm afraid you'll just have to wait.

As to your request to "know if the math checks out", I (for one) wouldn't waste a second of my time checking anything in the videos you mention.

I think this is possibly the wrong kind of forum to post a request like this. You might be better advised to post in some conspiracy theory site or the like.

Why don't you send your brother-in-law some of the many pictures of the earth that have been taken from space and maybe ask him why there have never been an reports of anyone falling off the edge of the earth if it's flat (or, indeed, why don't the oceans all just drain away over the edges?).

Good luck getting anyone to spend time checking this for you, baby.

 

[Idun]

Hi Highlander and thanks for responding. I had noticed that other ("days older") posts had been approved, hence my follow up post.

Perhaps you thought I was trolling with my post. I was being respectfully genuine in wanting the help of someone more confident with math than me.

If the claims of the video are so impossible, it should be readily disproved with math. Perhaps someone else would relish the challenge.

 

[Dr.Peterson]

Could I get an approval on this posting? Surely it's not offensive, or too difficult for mathematicians to explain to me as incorrect/correct?

No, it's not too difficult, just a potential waste of time (and, as you've been told, that's not the reason for the delay).

I'll take a look as I have time; I'm interested in seeing what people say about this, just out of curiosity.

 

[Idun]

Thank you so much Dr Peterson

I did not mean to come off rude by bumping my post. I've tried asking this question in multiple maths/geo facebook groups and forums and it never made it passed the moderators.

 

[The Highlander]

Hi Highlander and thanks for responding. I had noticed that other ("days older") posts had been approved, hence my follow up post.

Perhaps you thought I was trolling with my post. I was being respectfully genuine in wanting the help of someone more confident with math than me.

If the claims of the video are so impossible, it should be readily disproved with math. Perhaps someone else would relish the challenge.

Their use of Pythagoras' Theorem is irrefutably correct, they're just not using it to calculate the right thing(s)!

Have a read through and view the diagram in this post (in particular and a browse through all the posts on that website).

It's just plain silly to suggest that the earth is flat (or that there's any 'proof' of such nonsense); that's probably why your queries are simply being deleted by mods elsewhere.

 

[blamocur]

If the claims of the video are so impossible, it should be readily disproved with math.

But first one has to suffer through 6+ minutes of a video. Personally, I might take a look at a concisely written claim, but I don't usually volunteer for watching videos of this kind. You might get more responses if you provide a time code for a specific place in the video about which you or your relative have a question.

 

[Idun]

But first one has to suffer through 6+ minutes of a video. Personally, I might take a look at a concisely written claim, but I don't usually volunteer for watching videos of this kind. You might get more responses if you provide a time code for a specific place in the video about which you or your relative have a question.

No worries thanks for your reply. I don't think I could identify and specific point as it seems to all tie in.

 

[The Highlander]

No worries thanks for your reply. I don't think I could identify and specific point as it seems to all tie in.

I did take the time to watch the (first) video and, as I say, Tony Miller's post addresses one of the major flaws in their 'use' of Mathematics.

 

[Idun]

Their use of Pythagoras' Theorem is irrefutably correct, they're just not using it to calculate the right thing(s)!

Have a read through and view the diagram in this post (in particular and a browse through all the posts on that website).

It's just plain silly to suggest that the earth is flat (or that there's any 'proof' of such nonsense); that's probably why your queries are simply being deleted by mods elsewhere.

Thanks for the link (I can only read one post without joining up to Quora).

(Note I only posted one video).

I have seen the observer height mentioned. The horizon distance calculator in that Quora post appears to be the same one being used in the video I linked. The speaker in the video sets their observer height accordingly - can you please clarify on the flaw you were mentioning above?

That particular horizon distance calculator tells me that if I (as a 1.6m tall person) stand at the waters edge - the horizon should be 4.5 kilometers away. However when I stand at the waters edge I can see the sand at the (very skinny) shoreline of an island >16 kilometers away. I can also clearly see bouy's bobbing >4.5km away on the water, and how the water continues behind and on past those bouy's up toward the island.

I am also interested in the curvature of such calculators when simply considering the horizon i.e. looking left to right (I see a city on my left, and the tip of an island on my right - a distance of 68 kilometers). If the first curvature calculator I linked is accurate then 68km of horizon should have 360 meters of left to right curvature (not be totally flat infront of me). Based on the sphere size given.

 

[The Highlander]

Thanks for the link (I can only read one post without joining up to Quora).

I was able to read all the posts on that website and I haven't joined up to Quora. You just press the "Continue Reading ˅" button at the end of the displayed part of a post to see the rest of it. (When you click the link I provided, don't touch your mouse/keyboard for a few seconds to allow it to jump to the correct post in the thread.)

(Note I only posted one video).

Once the first video is finished playing a second one (on the same topic by the same (loony) presenter) starts up automatically and is probably followed by several others if you don't stop them playing!

I have seen the observer height mentioned. The horizon distance calculator in that Quora post appears to be the same one being used in the video I linked.

Not at all. Tony Miller's post (have another look or see below) makes it clear that the distances being calculated in your video are the ones he points out are completely the wrong thing to 'measure

That particular horizon distance calculator tells me that if I (as a 1.6m tall person) stand at the waters edge - the horizon should be 4.5 kilometers away. However when I stand at the waters edge I can see the sand at the (very skinny) shoreline of an island >16 kilometers away. I can also clearly see bouy's bobbing >4.5km away on the water, and how the water continues behind and on past those bouy's up toward the island.

Yes that's because that 'horizon calculator' is measuring the same wrong thing as most 'Flat Earthers' do. (And then claim it as 'proof' of their fantasies!)

I am also interested in the curvature of such calculators when simply considering the horizon i.e. looking left to right (I see a city on my left, and the tip of an island on my right - a distance of 68 kilometers). If the first curvature calculator I linked is accurate then 68km of horizon should have 360 meters of left to right curvature (not be totally flat infront of me). Based on the sphere size given.

The speaker in the video sets their observer height accordingly - can you please clarify on the flaw you were mentioning above?

There are many factors to be taken into account (as Miller points out), not least the refraction of light in addition to the correct lines of sight. Below is an extract of the most relevant part of the Quora Post (though the remainder of it goes into much more detail); note, in particular, that the calculations carried out (using Pythagoras' Theorem) in your video are actually measuring to the height "D" as being what should be visible due to the earth's curvature, whereas, geometrically, height "B" is what should be visible (before taking any other relevant factors into account).
I suggest you have another go at reading the full article by Miller (along with some of the other posts in that thread as well); maybe draw your brother-in-law's attention to them too?
(NB: I've added the red colouring above and in the extract below for ease of comparison. )

Extract from Tony Miller's post in Quora...

"Well… Let’s see… We KNOW the rule is 8″ x miles squared, Right?​

​

8*59²/12 = 2320.7 ft or 707.3 m​

​

So this MUST be correct, right? It’s math, can’t be wrong!​

​

Well…​

​

IF you put your eye/camera lens at sea-level, so it is half-way under the dirt/water, exactly at 0 elevation, and you ignored refraction then yes — that is what you would expect.​

​

Now ask yourself, are those EVER the ACTUAL viewing conditions?​

​

No - no they are not.​

​

Since none of those assumptions are correct let’s try that again using the correct mathematics for the real-life question.​

​

In short, you are trying to measure (D) in the image below when it is clearly (B) that you should be asking about. But for some reason, Flat Earth people can never seem to grasp this difference. (B) applies whenever the observer has ANY height AT ALL — even 1 cm. And unless you’ve stuck your camera half-way under the water you aren’t at 0 elevation (you have to measure to center of the lens)."​

​

​

Compare the horizontal (red) lines in the picture above (running from the foot of the green man to the top of the white arrow marked "D". Those are the distances being calculated in your video using Pythagoras' Theorem (at: 0:57, 3:32, 4:03, 4:53, etc.). The calculations (despite plugging in numbers that (conveniently) comply with Pythagoras' Theorem) are simply nonsensical.

It's a bit like Disraeli's comment that there are "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics". These Flat Earth idiots are just manipulating arbitrary numbers in entirely specious attempts to substantiate their crazy theories.

It's simple common sense that the Earth is ellipsoidal. The video presenter relies heavily on data provided by Google Earth; does he not recognize that said data has been collected by satellites orbiting around this spheroidal (globe) we are on?

Doh!

 

[Dr.Peterson]

I was able to read all the posts on that website and I haven't joined up to Quora. You just press the "Continue Reading ˅" button at the end of the displayed part of a post to see the rest of it. (When you click the link I provided, don't touch your mouse/keyboard for a few seconds to allow it to jump to the correct post in the thread.)

Doesn't work for me. I see a chatbot post, then one by Andrew Wyld, and nothing by Tony Miller. I've always been confused by Quora, the way it mixes different questions together; maybe it also looks different on different continents (because of different rules?).

 

[The Highlander]

Doesn't work for me. I see a chatbot post, then one by Andrew Wyld, and nothing by Tony Miller. I've always been confused by Quora, the way it mixes different questions together; maybe it also looks different on different continents (because of different rules?).

Are you using the Chrome Browser? If you are then, once you click the link, the page will open at the (top? of the) Quora webpage (showing: Andrew Wyld), however, as long as you don't touch anything (keyboard or mouse), then within a second or two, it should 'jump' down to Tony Miller's post.

If you are using a browser other than Chrome then that method of jumping to a particular line of text within a web page may not work. (I've just tried it on the Opera browser and it seemed to work OK but using the MS Edge browser (Ugghhh!) did seem a bit problematic.)

However, if you get the page opened with Andrew Wyld showing then just scroll down two posts. After Andrew Wyld there is a post by: Geoffrey Widdison and the one after that is by: Tony Miller.
Have another go, eh? Tony Miller

 

[Dr.Peterson]

If you are using a browser other than Chrome then that method of jumping to a particular line of text within a web page may not work. (I've just tried it on the Opera browser and it seemed to work OK but using the MS Edge browser (Ugghhh!) did seem a bit problematic.)

I was using Firefox; it shows nothing of the sort. I'd even searched for Miller in the page.

Are you using the Chrome Browser? If you are then, once you click the link, the page will open at the (top? of the) Quora webpage (showing: Andrew Wyld), however, as long as you don't touch anything (keyboard or mouse), then within a second or two, it should 'jump' down to Tony Miller's post.

Chrome is no different: not jump, and search reveals no Miller.

However, if you get the page opened with Andrew Wyld showing then just scroll down two posts. After Andrew Wyld there is a post by: Geoffrey Widdison and the one after that is by: Tony Miller.
Have another go, eh? Tony Miller

I've tried repeatedly; it's not there. (I see Assistant, then Wyld, then Re, then Ferral, then Uberti, and so on. A search does reveal Widdison far down the page.

I do suspect it's a regional thing.

 

[blamocur]

I've tried repeatedly; it's not there. (I see Assistant, then Wyld, then Re, then Ferral, then Uberti, and so on. A search does reveal Widdison far down the page.

I am having similar experience with both Firefox and Chromium (open source version of Chrome).

 

[The Highlander]

I was using Firefox; it shows nothing of the sort. I'd even searched for Miller in the page.


Chrome is no different: not jump, and search reveals no Miller.


I've tried repeatedly; it's not there. (I see Assistant, then Wyld, then Re, then Ferral, then Uberti, and so on. A search does reveal Widdison far down the page.

I do suspect it's a regional thing.

I am having similar experience with both Firefox and Chromium (open source version of Chrome).

One last attempt guys, huh?

Try this link (no 'jump' included this time) and see if the third contributor down is Tony Miller (after Andrew Wyld & Geoffrey Widdison).

 

[The Highlander]

@Dr.Peterson & @blamocur

Just out of interest, does this link (clicked in your browsers) take you to this text:-

"I think the question would have been made a lot clearer" (highlighted in purple)​

in another thread on the forum?

 

[blamocur]

@Dr.Peterson & @blamocur

Just out of interest, does this link (clicked in your browsers) take you to this text:-

"I think the question would have been made a lot clearer" (highlighted in purple)​

in another thread on the forum?

I takes me to your post #8 in the "Trigonometry" thread. Haven't noticed any highlighting.

 

[blamocur]

One last attempt guys, huh?

Try this link (no 'jump' included this time) and see if the third contributor down is Tony Miller (after Andrew Wyld & Geoffrey Widdison).

No, it does not. No "Miller", no Geoffrey Widdison (but there is "Eric Widdison" on that page).