Yes, PJ.... you asked for the size of the north POLE and not the north STAR.
I don't, just like you don't know the true numbers of a fake globe. You trust number like this and other extremely similar numbers when analyzed:
Well just like NASA in whom you place your unwavering trust, If I was good at math I could "create" the math that would work. In other words, I don't have the numbers but one could mak up the numbers they want to fit the model they're selling you.
So you're saying that no flat earther has any numbers as to the size of the earth (if it's flat), yet we globers have measurements of the earth, circumference at the equator, diameter, mass, etc?
As many miles as who says? How far, PJ, do they say it is from the north pole to the equator? Double that distance and you should have the distance from the NP to the SP.
Distance
You get more ridiculous with every post. You are a true flat earther.I don't, just like you don't know the true numbers of a fake globe. You trust number like this and other extremely similar numbers when analyzed:
Nice way to avoid your terrible excuse for evidence.
That's rich.
To not lose sight of this question, I found a Guinness record from 1979, not published until 2015 of a ship "supposedly". I saw an alleged plane flight from 1977, it was a 22 minute video. Then I saw people who have "crossed" the alleged "continent". Is that the best there is out there? Why hasn't somebody really faked it better than those example?
If the "sunset" in the flat earth model is based on perspective, why does the sun not get smaller but remains the same size all the way down? The perspective model requires objects farther away to appear smaller.
This video you posted seems to be trying to refute the flat earth theory but this comment explains the video's errors, by Jeff Simmons : This video was mirrored by POARIS OVER THE FLAT EARTH Daniel Channelhttps ://www .youtube. com/watch?v=qHYe0DXp9eU&t=61sWhat seems to be happening is you are applying plane geometry to spherical geometry.The 90 degree angle that you would have for the leg b on all points of the flat earthdoes not correspond to the angle at the leg ab of a curved surface. They would all be different angles due to the curve of leg b angles as opposed to 90 on the flat earth.Second since Polaris must be a fixed point somewhere in space then the heightcannot vary as you show, so it must be apparent height which is not real height. The same would happen if you applied it to a row of light posts extending off in the distance.The distance on the curved surface must it seems be from the central line extendingfrom the center and make a 90 degree angle which you would have to make the lega that distance from that line and calculate if you were doing it on a sphere which would be identical with a flat surface.to pole hyp deg a leg heightBogota 5899 5821 5 516Miami 4443 4943 26 2166Chicago 3333 4887 41 2897Edmon 2527 4198 53 3353Anch 1998 4121 61 3604As you can see from the above Polaris position or height can in no way change or vary since it is some fixed object in the sky, so the heights are only apparent meaning illusory. For instance you can't go to Polaris with a tape ribbon attached to you to get the actual distance from some point here on earth.In other words you can't make a right triangle on a sphere unless you measure the distance of the leg from a point on the surface to the 90 degree line projecting into the central line and up for the 90 degree angle. A right triangle can only be applied to a plane surfaces, i.e. straight lines for leg a and b or distance and height.More to the point any Pythagorean calculation on a sphere must project the leg b to the center and leg awill be within the earth for said angles so you can't use Pythagorean to come to some conclusion.For instance if you say leg b is 5899 and angle A is 5 deg then c is 5921.53 side aheight is 516.09 and that is that.If you try and stick with the height 516.09 at distance 4443 then the angle would be6.62, which it isn't in reality therefore the height is not what is stated, that doesn't mean that polaris is at some x height.
If the "sunset" in the flat earth model is based on perspective, why does the sun not get smaller but remains the same size all the way down? The perspective model requires objects farther away to appear smaller.
The sun does get "smaller", as I've show footage of, relative to it's size and distance above us.
Notice how the lights appear smaller the father way? That's how perspective really works.
But according to globe earth theory, the sun IS father away from earth at times.If the "sunset" in the flat earth model is based on perspective, why does the sun not get smaller but remains the same size all the way down? The perspective model requires objects farther away to appear smaller.
Notice how the lights appear smaller the father way? That's how perspective really works.
The sun and the moon do appear larger and smaller when they are closer and farther. But that does not change on a daily basis.