If the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10.000km and the circumference of the Equator is 40.075 km then we live on a spherical planet.

@@marcg1686 that gives u a circle not a sphere. Try again

@@davesantiago1827 A circle with a circumference of 40.075 km has a radius of 6.378km. I'm not expecting you to understand basic geometry, but you're abusing the privilige.

@@marcg1686 curvature has never been observed or measured. We live on a flat plane. All elevation angles prove this. We don't live on a sphere. Care to tell me how u get an elevation angle from a curved adjacent. You don't have a tangent because the horizon isn't physical.

​@@davesantiago1827 Let's first wrap up the inconvenience of: Circumference = pi*2*r. The distance from the Equator to the harbour entrance at Peterhead is 6378km. What is the distance separating the geographic North Pole from the Equator on your special needs terrarium? If it is 10.000 km then you are living on a globe.

I feel like lunar position and it's effects on water levels might as well.

Proof?

@@xeno2421 Proof? None. Flattards are bone idle.

Grammar is an important component in making a point. However, you do not need it in the first place if your argument is a moot point (using its most common definition). Sure, you can question science on its hypotheses and theories as they are open and exist to be questioned. But, when it comes down to stuff that you can go outside and test/observe for yourself and draw your own conclusions, it is hard to debate its accuracy. I can go out and observe gravity and connect math to it (making it quantifiable data) just like in the video. If it is readily observable and repeatable, it is not subjective in the slightest. I am sure you are unwilling to change your skeptical viewpoint on science, but I simply ask that you go make logical observations and tests for yourself if you are unpersuaded by those of others. P.S. The "R" value as you put it is not simply built into the equation, it is there for a reason because observation has called for it to fit into the equation. It would be like saying the "r" in πr^2 for the area of a circle is arbitrarily placed into the equation, even though the equation fails to exist without a radius. Similarly, the equation in the video requires an "R" because it fails to make sense without it as seen through observation; removing it would be like removing the K constant for gravity in the equation for calculating gravity.

vxRadiationxv Wow! You sure like “Word Salad” And Math! Lol You can walk outside and Observe Gravity? Really? Ok if you “Can See it”? Walk back in your house and Prepare a “Live Experiment” Without Using Math And Computer Simulations? And use the Scientific Criteria to Show your Experiment? That in lays the Problem with Globe Believers, They can only use Complicated Math And Cartoon Pictures! Math doesn’t “Represent” Reality, you use it because “You” can’t Show Reality! No wonder we are in a Mess on this Earth is people like You Deceiving the Public and Confusing them with Math, and NOT Proving your Claims with live Experiments it Measurements! One more thing to “Debunk” your Math! “Show a Live Video Of a Ground Measurement Taking Place , If the Earth was a Globe? This could be Done at Even 3-5 miles, pick any object like a Car or a Tree, or Building and see what’s missing from So Called Curvature? It’s funny that the Flat Earth community can show “Live Videos” On Experiments And Measurements, And I’ll bet the Farm YOU can’t! Does this tell you something? Yes it does, you “Hide” in Math Equations And I Show Reality! Truth is easier to Defend! Lies are Imposable to Defend!

So I’m going to Show “Live” Experiments To Show Reality! First Experiment is a Child’s One From Home Anyone can do about “Refraction” kzbin.info/www/bejne/qWSofGSifNCZaNU&feature=share Now the Next one is just Proof “How much Water is in the Atmosphere at any given time..Go to any of these Websites to confirm for yourself, kzbin.info/www/bejne/maW0iX6VjtJjnrs&feature=share So next here is a “Live Experiment” Debunking “Ships going over Curvature” and Aspects of the Sun! Scientific Criteria being used! kzbin.info/www/bejne/fp7caWabe5iphLs&feature=share Here is Another “Live Experiment” Showing That Our Sun is Local and Small! Can’t be Debunked what so ever! Gee isn’t Real Science just Awesome? kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5PVZ3arnb2ZZ5Y&feature=share

​@@bearsmack6969 Math is the language to comprehend experiments. You can do live experiments, but you cannot quantify it to form a model of how it works without math. In broader terms, I believe math is the language of God's Creation. Concepts of math were used - and still are used - to comprehend Creation (reality). In a sense, you could say math is man-made, although it is used to understand what is not man-made. Math simplifies down the summatively incomprehensible Creation from an omniscient Creator into what we can make sense of with our finite minds. However, even though math can be seen as limited in this sense, it remains consistent and repeatable. Your videos on refraction would not make sense without the math required to support what is happening regarding refraction is true. Sure, refraction may play a role, but not the only role. If you were to isolate a system where there was an atmosphere that allowed for refraction on a flat plane, you would find different results compared to the same test conducted on a curved plane. However, by this testing, you could not reach a proof or disprove of the earth being flat or curved due to the presumption that the current earth is one of the other. So, other evidence must be looked at, like video evidence (which you so desire). Here are the videos for the SpaceX Falcon Heavy Launch and a live stream that followed the view of the Roadster. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZO2qHmLa9mMZ8U kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3PVY56Bdq2BbK8. However, I am assuming you will conclude the cameras were hacked and it is all doctored footage (even though it is from a live steam, a "Live Video" like those you say the flat earth community has). Achievements like those in the videos would not be possible without math because math is what ties observable concepts/tests together: it is the glue of our view of Creation. If you want other "live experiments," here are some: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5KzkmebqK99rpY twitter.com/kurtisbaute/status/1036255606414471168. You can test these for yourself, the math in the first one only quantifies the concept and makes the concept easier to understand and repeat. Finally, saying something is absolute and "cannot be debunked" goes directly against science which is based on: asking questions, putting those questions to the test, and repeatedly trying to prove your own results wrong (by its very nature, the goal of true science is to debunk its concepts, which just ends up strengthening what is true and weeding out what is unreliable). Of course, you may read my response that plans to take a wider approach to the subject matter as me not providing an answer or conceding, but I assure you that I believe there is insurmountable evidence outlining how Creation works through quantifiable, repeatable, observable, and testable experiment/data (applying primarily to gravity, the earth, and the sun as this debate demands). If you want more sources, let me know. God bless!

@@vxRadiationxv ​ God bless? So we can assume you believe in God? Christian? Curious how you wrap your head around a collection of 66 books that claim earth is flat on pillars and immovable. It claims the sun stands still not the earth. Does God not know which body is moving? Or is it more likely it’s you that’s placing your faith in the cult of science over God? Very odd to see a believer, if you truly are, that denies scripture to believe in a globe.

The purpose of this measurement was not to prove that the Earth is a sphere. That's been known for two thousand years. It was merely to determine the radius of the Earth.

@@marcg1686 Yes you're correct, I just made the jump from by assuming the existence of a Radius, we are assuming a Spherical earth which doesn't agree with the Flat Earth Model nor does it agree with the "Oblate Spheroid" model presented by the head Ball Earther Neil Degrasse Tyson.

@@vedwards5027 You're living on an oblate spheroid with less than 1% difference between the polar and equatorial circumference. Let me guess, you think an oblate spheroid has to be egg shaped. The flat earth has failed every test applied to it. The current YT flat earth hoax is about 9 years old now. Nine years and yet no one has come up with an equation that allows a flat earther to determine the distance to the flat earth horizon based on his height of eye. Nine years.

@@marcg1686 Provide me the experiment that I can repeat that resulted in the 1% difference between the polar and equatorial circumference... Which tests has the Flat Earth failed??? Here's a few it passed...which Ball Earth fails. 1.) Common Sense, 2.) Observation 3.) Occam's Razor 4.) Doesn't violate any Laws of Physics 5.) Majority of evidence is easily seen or repeated. The Equation for distance of horizon dependent on height of eye...I can research this for you but if you want to know you can dive into how they program video games from the first person perspective...they use a flat plane in the vast majority if not all of them. That's a good start but a lot of them use fog or blur effects to avoid having to program maps that extend out as far as the eye can see.

Chill. Covid lockdown must be getting to you. Seems obvious to me that the camera likely isn’t showing the light levels as they truely are.

@@feefifofum6383 I enjoy his mathematics but I fail to see the relation to reality. In a contrived environment such as a graph what he is saying may hold true but the connection with reality is glanced over and not established coherently.

@@feefifofum6383 He is simply showing the mathematics and is very passive about having to relate it back to reality. It's like "here are some equations to calculate distances on a sphere...and here is some shotty footage of the sun...and there you have it...my model depicts reality"....Nope, doesn't work that way...