This is my last word for now regarding the flat earth. As you can see from the following photos, and according to one of the many gatekeepers of the flat earth and many other secrets, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the earth has a bulge at it's equator of 26.5 miles (see attachment), which he adds in this statement about the subject: https://youtu.be/1OeWTrEA5fE is actually wider below the equator or 'pear shaped' in his words.
Interestingly enough, although I found how the scientists calculated the bulge at the equator using 'V squared over R', nowhere could I find any calculation for the additional bulge below the equator, the esteemed Mr. Tyson describes as it's 'pearshapedness'...
Of additional interest is although Mr. Tyson clearly states the bulge has been created due to the spin at the equator "Over it's (the earth's) lifetime", there is no part of the 'V squared over R' equation that takes into account, the time in relation to the current size of the bulge at the equator plus the additional bulge below the equator for added pearshapedness.
I've included a collage of what a full circle earth, an oblate spheroid shape looks like, and a comical pear-shaped earth to give you an idea of the various shapes we're dealing with (including the one shown to us and falsely passed off as perfectly circular for 400 plus years until now...hmm). I've also included, in that collage, the equation to calculate the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle, using Pi, in the same way science uses Pi to determine the earth is round.
My first issue is Mr. Tyson's rambling about the topic, not knowing immediately how long it takes for the earth to rotate and seemingly unable to speak with any authority on the subject, as if unsure of any of what he's saying (very unscientific, if you ask me).
My second (and critical) issue is, in determining that the earth is round, spinning ball earth scientists use a formula that contains Pi which is simply a mathematical description of a circle, which is neither an oblate spheroid nor a pear shape.
So if Pi is related to a circle, which the earth is not, and nowhere can the calculation for the bulge in relation to time nor the calculation for the additional pear bulge below the equator be found anywhere, and the 'V squared over R' used to calculate the bulge at the equator is simply an additional formula tacked onto an already flawed calculation for a pear shaped world using Pi, then how can any of it be used??!!
Some say the '8 x the mile squared' that many use is not valid either since it's only based on a section of a curve.
I've included screenshots showing various methods and formulas used to calculate the curvature, like the two separate curvature calculators showing a difference of over 300 feet (Metabunk was 1400 something and the straight '8 x the mile squared' was 1734) over a distance of 50 miles.
Some have calculated the curve using metric with Pi included and come up with only approximately a 3% curve over 50 miles or only 21 feet over the curve of a 700 foot tall land mass vs. 1734 or 1400ish, which is a whopping difference.
So in order to solve the argument over the shape of the earth, the only way to difinitively find out, is to throw out numbers and prove it through other means. If nobody can agree on an appropriate and conclusive formula, we need to throw it all out and figure another way to settle this once and for all.
I find it absolutely absurd that, in this advanced technological age, with supposedly men walking on the moon, satellites supposedly in orbit around us, people supposedly in a space station hurtling around and around us at 17,500 miles an hour, telescopes supposedly in space, probes supposedly billions of miles into space and robots supposedly roving around on Mars, and we can't figure out how to prove the earth is round or flat without numbers and theories?! WTF?
Are we really saying it's not possible??!!
No comments:
Post a Comment