[Rich]

Everything you say is moronic and stupid and conspiratorial. Nobody on this forum respects you. Please, for the love of God, start thinking. About anything, just start thinking. I would legit respect you more if you put forth Flat Earth arguments so long as it was clear that you had actually thought about them.

Also I would not be surprised if you're already a Flat Earther.

There you go again, typical Liberal, pretending to care about things you don't. I have suffered for my beliefs about the Earth's shape. I very much doubt you have. In fact in the last 24 hours I've been wrestling with my consciousness over this very subject.

Since I was an adolescent I've loved tile maps particular hex maps. Do you have any idea how much easier my life would be if allowed myself to believe in flat Earth. Mapping flat2 dimensional maps on to the surface of a sphere or even worse an oblate spheroid is inevitably messy. I have encoded the equator as (approx) 1% longer than the lines of longitude. And I have encoded the length of the other lines of latitude as proportion to their cosine. Now as you've told us many times I'm just a retard compared to your intelligence. You will no doubt have spotted my error. While we can certainly obtain the two dimensional coordinates of a longitudinal cross section of the spheroid a give latitude by multiplying the sin or cosine by the appropriate axis radius of the Elliptical cross section. We can not get the correct distances between the latitudes or their correct lengths by such simple maths.

Or to put it in layman's (and lay women's and lay non binary's) terms if you were to walk due north from the equator to the 1st parallel, the distance would be about 1% less than if you walked due North from the 89th parallel to the North Pole.

I'm a bit concerned that not all forum readers will be smart enough to recognise you're towering relative intelligence to me. So I have left in my mistake, so people can see just how stupid I am. What I've highlighted in red is not correct. The length of a line latitude can be determined by the simple formula of multiplying the cosine of the latitude by the major axis of the Ellipse. I've no doubt that you would have spotted that at first reading even if I hadn't highlighted it in red.

[ingliz]

Mapping flat2 dimensional maps on to the surface of a sphere or even worse an oblate spheroid is inevitably messy.

Why not save yourself the mess and buy a cheap inflatable globe on Ebay?

[SpecialOlympian]

No you pathetic cretin I am not.

Are you sure? You believe in lots of stupid shit, so please double check.

Like last week you accused Godstud of supporting the "Thai Deep State" so I can believe you believe anything.

[SpecialOlympian]

Like Rich, you realize Thailand is a constitutional monarchy right? Like what the fuck is the deep state in this situation? The career bureacurats who don't believe in the divine right of kings?

The reason I know this is because like 10+ years ago I made a joke comment on a YouTube video of the Thai king wearing some kind of pointy hat and I noticed his pointy hat was shorter than the other people in the video. So I made a dumb comment saying, "Why does the king have the smallest dick hat? Shouldn't he have the biggest dick hat?" and to this day I still get the occasional angry comment from Thai nationalists telling me to go fuck myself.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

There you go again, typical Liberal, pretending to care about things you don't. I have suffered for my beliefs about the Earth's shape. I very much doubt you have. In fact in the last 24 hours I've been wrestling with my consciousness over this very subject.

Since I was an adolescent I've loved tile maps particular hex maps. Do you have any idea how much easier my life would be if allowed myself to believe in flat Earth. Mapping flat2 dimensional maps on to the surface of a sphere or even worse an oblate spheroid is inevitably messy.

Yes, it is very messy. I had to find out the true definition of 'latitude' for the following, since I hadn't thought it through till now. I'm going to assume that Wikipedia has got it right by now (rash?).

On its own, the term latitude should be taken to be the geodetic latitude as defined below. Briefly, geodetic latitude at a point is the angle formed by the vector perpendicular (or normal) to the ellipsoidal surface from that point, and the equatorial plane.

So it is not, as I first thought, defined by the angle at the centre of the earth between the equator and the point. That is the "geocentric latitude"; this is important.

I have encoded the equator as (approx) 1% longer than the lines of longitude.

That's too big a difference.

The exact distance around the equator is 40,075.017 km (24,901.461 mi) and around the poles is 40,007.863 km (24,859.734 mi).

That's about 0.17% longer.

And I have encoded the length of the other lines of latitude as proportion to their cosine. Now as you've told us many times I'm just a retard compared to your intelligence. You will no doubt have spotted my error. While we can certainly obtain the two dimensional coordinates of a longitudinal cross section of the spheroid a give latitude by multiplying the sin or cosine by the appropriate axis radius of the Elliptical cross section. We can not get the correct distances between the latitudes or their correct lengths by such simple maths.
...
I'm a bit concerned that not all forum readers will be smart enough to recognise you're towering relative intelligence to me. So I have left in my mistake, so people can see just how stupid I am. What I've highlighted in red is not correct. The length of a line latitude can be determined by the simple formula of multiplying the cosine of the latitude by the major axis of the Ellipse. I've no doubt that you would have spotted that at first reading even if I hadn't highlighted it in red.

Ah, no; at least, not the geodetic latitude which is normally what just "latitude" means. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude ... _longitude for a formula that involves the square of the eccentricity times the sine of latitude, as well as the cosine.

Or to put it in layman's (and lay women's and lay non binary's) terms if you were to walk due north from the equator to the 1st parallel, the distance would be about 1% less than if you walked due North from the 89th parallel to the North Pole.

That is roughly true, though since your figure for the relative sizes of the equator and the polar circumference was incorrect, I'm not convinced it's good to say "or to put it in layman's terms ... the distance would be about 1% less ..." - the formula to derive the length of a degree of latitude is complicated (again, involving the square of the eccentricity time the sine of latitude): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude# ... f_latitude

The figures are 110.574 km at the equator, 111.694 km at the pole - very close to 1% difference.

The diameter of the earth through the equator is about 1% larger than its diameter from pole to pole. This means that lines of longitude do not follow a completely circular path and are in fact ellipses with an eccentricity of about 0.01. The result of this is that although the angular distances between lines of latitude are equal (by definition), their circumfirential (I just made that word up, but people who have actually given 5 minutes to study geoemtry will know what I mean) distances vary slightly meaning that when I said

Eccentricity e is defined by e squared = 1 - (b/a) squared where b is the semiminor axis (ie polar radius) and a the semimajor (equatorial radius). Those radii are 6357 km and 6378 km, so (b/a) is 0.09967 (ie 0.33% difference), and e works out as 0.081. You'll be glad to know 'circumferential' is a word with the meaning you want.

[Rich]

That's too big a difference.

That's about 0.17% longer.

I didn't actually check my code, which I wrote well over a year ago, I just googled the difference for quickness and assumed the first hit was correct. The values I have actually been using are:

Code: Select allval EarthPolarRadius: Dist = 6356.7523.km
val EarthEquatorialRadius: Dist = 6378.137.km


So it is not, as I first thought, defined by the angle at the centre of the earth between the equator and the point. That is the "geocentric latitude"; this is important.

Ah, no; at least, not the geodetic latitude which is normally what just "latitude" means. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude ... _longitude for a formula that involves the square of the eccentricity times the sine of latitude, as well as the cosine.

Yes of course it all seems so obvious now. The geodetic and the geocentric latitude would of course be the same if the earth was a sphere. A lot of Liberals when they want to argue abut Flat Earth seem to want to make it about faith in Nasa, as if we needed Nasa to know the Earth is round and as if the photos are proof, when in fact they are often composites and could be easily faked anyway. Our Greater European (Europe plus Super Saharan Africa and the fertile crescent) realised the Earth was round thousands if not tens of thousands of years ago.

And latitude, I presume would have been determined by the angle of the Sun overhead on the Equinox. This gives the geodetic. Measurement of longitude came much much later, requiring very accurate clocks.

[what kid marley]

*trumpers = liberals

[Rancid]

hello.