About the 8 inches per mile squared

[@FlatFact]

You are very clever! The globe shows very clearly that the equator circle is a far greater size, than the arctic circle.

[@ronhagberg]

Thanks! Crazy how some people get exactly what I'm saying and some don't, must be a left brain/right brain thing, lol

[@CH-up4ne]

You are wrong about this one, maybe you are trolling. If that is the case that would be funny. I'll explain it here if people are confused. 8 inches per mile squared measures the curvature of a ball or and circle that has a circumference of 24,900 miles. The northern and southern latitude lines have a smaller and smaller circumference as you travel north or south, so yes they have more curvature. But the earth circumference in the globe model is 24,900 miles. So that has to be the curve to measure. If you make a latitude line one inch around the north pole do you think that would be the curve you would observe? Latitude lines are not drawn along the circumference, longitude lines are. But good troll bro.

[@JesusIsaFlatEarther]

@@CH-up4ne Since we know there's no curvature to the Earth, I believe a long piece of dimentional lumber would better illustrate the increased theoretical curve at the Equator.

[@CH-up4ne]

@@ronhagberg You cant sight down northern or southern latitude lines only the equatorial line, in the globe model because they curves to the left or right. Put two points on the 45th latitude line. Now draw a the shortest line between them. The shortest line will never follow the 45th latitude line because that line curves sideways and arch up and down. You will get the same curvature between any two points on a ball the same circumference. If the earth was a ball and gravity worked the way most people believe it to be, and you had a rifle that could shoot a bullet 30,000 miles. Any direction you shot it, it would go around the ball and come from behind you. Any direction you fired it it would follow the circumference.This is ridiculous I know. As it would actually fly into space. But this what is believed. Thanks for putting forth the thought experiment.

[@FlatFact]

@@CH-up4ne quoting you "Latitude lines are not drawn along the circumference longitude lines are" Sorry that is wrong. Latitude lines are most definitely drawn on the circumference. These are on maps going back to the 1500s, they are marked as degrees with some locations shown clearly eg The equator and the north tropic latitude and south tropic latitude.. Longitude lines are about time in relation to Greenwich. Which is why sailors of old use chronometers. Longitude lines are and addition coming a long time after latitude lines. FlatFact

[@fluffythc4510]

Actually the curvature would not change on a sphere !!! At all times you are at the top of the ball with all directions curving equally downward from U !!!!

[@ronhagberg]

A sphere can be measured from different points. www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Sphere/Cap/SphereCap.htm

[@zeromph8325]

Hi Ron. I like that this thought occurred to you, and at first it sounds plausible. I've ventured off into things like this before and have been wrong. It's true that the smaller circles on a globe would be traveling slower and slower as one reached the North Pole. And it's kind of weird to imagine a Jet beginning at the equator; flying over the North Pole, then keep following the same path to the equator again (on the other side of the ball). We'd not only be dealing with a 600 mph jet "fighting coriolis", we'd also experience the ground below us begin to speed up in the opposite direction under the jet. (Try it on a model). I think that would total around 2076 mph from where one would start. But I got off track here! Back to your idea. The way I see it, the curvature formula of 8" per mile squared work well on a 25,000 mile circumference ball - but only up to 1000 miles from any particular starting point. After 1000 miles that line becomes a parabola and doesn't follow a circle and the numbers get way off. The actual curvature of such a ball size would be far greater than what the formula concludes - but only after 1000 miles or so. Anyways. Regardless of where one would stand on a ball, when they peer straight out, that visual line becomes it's own "equator" and would go straight around a planet back to the viewer. We can imagine smaller circles happening to say our left or going north, but those imaginary lines can't change the curvature formula. If any of that makes sense

[@ronhagberg]

If you flew a plane around the arctic circle, staying above it until you returned to where you started from, have you not flown around a smaller portion of the ball? I understand what you are saying, I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying, but it is good that this video is sparking conversation and debate. A sphere can be measured from points other than the full circumference. www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Sphere/Cap/SphereCap.htm

[@jeremyvandenbosch5114]

Ron the 45 degree latitude line is approximately 17k miles. We went down this path 5-6 years ago. Yes the flight following that latitude line would be shorter. But no as an optical view anywhere you stand on a sphere and peer in any direction you have the exact same view. But you’re on the right path to finding the truth!! The earth isn’t flat (mountains and valleys) but the oceans are most definitely flat....

[@Frankyouknow]

I'm a flatearther but I have to disagree on this one because a person standing on a ball would always be perpendicular to its center so the curvature would be the same in every direction. The latitude and longitude lines are just arbitrary.

[@ronhagberg]

I know the lines are arbitrary, but if you circumnavigated the earth at the arctic circle, you would be traveling a much shorter distance than you would if you did it at the equator.

[@hoosierflatty6435]

@@ronhagberg How does that equal increased curvature? It's not that some of us don't "get it" , it's that we don't think you've sufficiently proven your point.

[@Frankyouknow]

@@ronhagberg The radius of a sphere is the same everywhere on a ball. If you slice it up it's not a ball anymore. The surface will never change on a sphere. Focus on the outer surface to understand this.

[@ronhagberg]

@@Frankyouknow a sphere can be measured from different points. www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Sphere/Cap/SphereCap.htm

[@Frankyouknow]

@@ronhagberg I understand what you are saying but the surface of a sphere is the same no matter what point you are on. Think about wrapping a net around a sphere all patches will share the same surface curvature.

[@kobygrimes1234]

This was a very VERY difficult concept to grasp, but once I understood it about 5 minutes in, my jaw dropped. The curve would be extremely pronounced at those angles. Extremely interesting.

[@kobygrimes1234]

The sliced foam ball is an excellent tool and model, that's what made it click for me. Great work here bro

[@ronhagberg]

@@kobygrimes1234 Thank you!!!

[@CH-up4ne]

You are correct in that the equator "line' is the only latitude line that would have the 8 inches per mile squared curvature. But that's only because only latitude line that goes around the circumference. On the other hand every longitudinal line follows the circumference. Sorry but you are wrong about this one. If its a ball, and it appears not to be from my observations. A ball by definition has the same curve from any point if measured in a straight line. You are looking at it wrong. But thanks for putting it out there.

[@ronhagberg]

I said all of the longitude lines are the same. The latitude lines are not. The earth is not measured in a straight line from any point (hence the latitude lines) How do you think they measure the 60th parallel or the arctic circle or any other latitude line? I know they have never been physically measured , but the measurements are a mathematical construct based on a globe of a certain size. If you are standing on the arctic circle, your rotational speed on the earth will be slower because you are on a smaller part of the ball, I explained all of this in the video, but you seem to have missed the point. If you think latitude lines are wrong (which they are) because earth is not a globe, then welcome to the flat earth.

[@CH-up4ne]

@@ronhagberg Yes I watched the whole video. At the end you say "smaller part of the ball". Grab a basketball and show me the smaller part of the ball. It's a ball it all the same. The earth is clearly not a ball. I get that. But you are saying a ball is not a ball. You crack me up.

[@ronhagberg]

@@CH-up4ne if you palm a basketball, is your hand around the full circumference of it? Absolutely not, unless you have the biggest hands on earth, you are touching only a small portion of the ball. The reason the rotational speed of the earth changes with latitude is because you are on a smaller part of the ball.

[@ronhagberg]

@@CH-up4ne I'm not saying a ball is not a ball, I'm saying you can measure a ball at places other than it's equator. If you circumnavigate the earth at the arctic circle, you would be travelling a much shorter distance than if you did it at the equator, so you would be traveling around a smaller part of the ball. I honestly don't see what the confusion about that is.

[@craigburridge950]

Dude!....really? You don't get it. Ron is spot on!

[@bearinacity]

Excellent point.

[@ronhagberg]

Thanks!

[@TJTrusty111]

This is definitely something to think about. If you're on a ball that is not moving/rotating you could argue that you're on the top of the ball no matter where you are on the ball, but if the ball is rotating in a fixed direction on an axis then that changes everything. Perspective and direction suddenly become a factor due to the motion of the ground you're standing on. It's almost like they could've probably gotten away with the sphere trap if they didn't include the earth rotation in their lie. Like, they could have kept up the ball lie longer if they had left it as the sky is moving instead of the rotating ball. It's probably their biggest logic flaw. I don't know if that made sense or not but I had to note this and I'm super tired. Thanks for doing the work on this Ron.

[@ronhagberg]

Makes perfect sense!

[@hoosierflatty6435]

I'm not sure I'm following you. I would've thought the only thing affecting the formula would be due to the claim that the ball Earth is "chubbier" in the southern hemisphere; and it would only be a slight variation. Everywhere you are on a ball is the top of the ball from your perspective.

[@ronhagberg]

some people get exactly what I'm saying, some don't. I would say "agree to disagree" but it seems we are not on the same page. I know exactly what you are saying, and I don't disagree, but you clearly don't see what I'm saying and I can't say it any better. Thanks for watching though.

[@hoosierflatty6435]

@@ronhagberg I really can't comprehend why you're making this leap. If one is atop a sphere then in every direction the surface curves away from you. It doesn't matter which way you look.

[@ronhagberg]

@@hoosierflatty6435 so you don't understand the part where I cut up the foam ball? We are talking about two different things, if you were just on top of any ball then you would be correct, but if you were on a giant ball with gravity and you were standing on the arctic circle looking east or west the curvature would be exaggerated, I can't comprehend how you you can't see what I'm saying, it's OK though, we are not on the same page, maybe not even in the same book, no worries 👍

[@hoosierflatty6435]

@@ronhagberg I still don't get it but I'll share this around with some of my friends and keep thinking about it.

[@ronhagberg]

@@hoosierflatty6435 www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Sphere/Cap/SphereCap.htm

[@FlashTrance]

It's interesting I stumbled upon this after watching Jeranism's recent livestream where a guy claimed the same thing. This is not correct, but I can't blame you for being confused because the globe is intentionally confusing. The easiest way to explain it is notice that lines of latitude are not straight lines, they're circles. When we look directly east or west, we're not actually looking along a line of latitude. If I'm standing anywhere on earth and I look in a STRAIGHT line, in any direction, I'm actually looking towards the equator. If this is confusing, just do it on FE model; put your finger on any point and draw a straight line towards the east of wherever your finger is. Much easier to understand (obviously, since it's 1000x more correct than the globe). It's the same on the globe, any glober who thinks looking due east/west is looking along a line of latitude doesn't understand their own model. Hope this helps someone!

[@lordshandyman]

Thank you so much for going through the trouble to demonstrate this to me. However, when you cut the foam ball into slices, you needed to cut them through the exact center of the ball. That way you use the same circumference each time. That would be equivalent as to standing straight up from the ground 90 degrees and looking at the horizon north south east west from any of the latitude lines. Cutting slices along the latitude line would be like looking at the horizon while you leaned sideways 45 degrees or what ever degrees latitude you were on. It doesn't change the shape of the ball, but does change your perspective. As for the other foam ball, it has the same curvature all around it, assuming it is a perfect sphere. How could the shape (curvature) of the ball change just because you stuck a stick through it or painted some dots on it? If you pull the stick out and then stab it through the equator or anywhere else for that matter, does this change its curvature? Once again, I am honored you took the time to make a video demonstrating your thoughts about this. I look forward to learning more with you and from you.

[@ronhagberg]

some get it, some don't, hopefully it will at least inspire some new thoughts. Thanks for watching.

[@ronhagberg]

You can measure different parts of a sphere. www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Sphere/Cap/SphereCap.htm

[@lordshandyman]

@@ronhagberg It can be measured from any point, but if done from a cap, sector, or segment, you would have to use a different formula, as the 8"per mile squared is only for calculating curvature using the circumference. However, the final answer would be the same amount of curvature assuming you started out with the same size ball.

[@ronhagberg]

I think you almost get what I'm saying. Your first sentence is correct. The curvature would not be the same at the circumference as it would be at the cap or segment.

[@lordshandyman]

Ron, think of it this way, break your globe by taking it off its stand. Poke two holes perfectly opposite on the equator. Put the globe back in its stand using these new holes and give it a spin. As it is spinning, draw an arctic circle. Does the new arctic circle around the new poles change their curvature? Does the old poles, now on the equator magically flatten out? Once you have done that, just throw the broken globe in the trash were it belongs. :)

[@ronhagberg]

You have inspired me to make another video about this, I will be uploading it soon. I don't own a globe, I did think about buying one just for this but I used a beach ball instead.

[@lordshandyman]

@@ronhagberg Ok. lol. Don't buy a globe, no need to support the lie. A beach ball will do. If you use a dry erase marker, you can reuse the same ball. I look forward to your video. Thanks for continuing to try and explain your way of thinking on this.

[@ronhagberg]

I just uploaded it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGqkioF7r7uMatE

[@joetomgizzledancer]

I get what you're saying, but to the observer you have to be parallel to the your "slice" to see the exaggerated curve. For example if you were on n 45 parallel and were looking east you would have to lean to the south x number degrees to the south and you will see a slope. Globe model assumes we all are 90 deg. to the center of the earth due to magic gravity, so everywhere you are on the ball looks the same in every direction. I'm not saying the Earth is a ball by any means, just my 2 cents.

[@ronhagberg]

You wouldn't have to lean, just turn in a different direction.

[@FlatDan]

The "earth spin" is a perceived motion. What we all observe is the sky moving. If the earth spun at different speeds at different latitudes, would not the sky appear to move at different speeds at different latitudes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sky moves at a constant 15 degrees an hour, no matter what your location is.

[@ronhagberg]

That's part of my point. If the earth were spinning at different speeds, there should be a perceivable difference in the motion of the stars, and if that were the case there should also be a measurable difference in the curvature. But there are neither of those.

[@FlatDan]

@@ronhagberg Absolutely, I’m with you. Your video just made me think of that. The globe is such nonsense. We don’t curve and we’re not moving. 👍

[@ericedwards1731]

If you look around Google earth really well you can find seams where the map was put together, also my favorite is Antarctica, it has real pictures around the outside but the whole inside is digital snow same with the North pole, 2 places in the world citizens can not visit or explore.

[@trixmania]

Its so weird. First they show a perfect globe, looking perfectly round, yet those lines get smaller to meet in the middle. Makes me find it hard to see it as a ball like that

[@zeTETicTruthTube]

Very interesting. :) I live at the arctic circle. No curve to report here, sir :)

[@FedericoSerrano314159265]

First of all, a sphere must have the same curvature at each point of its surface. Also, the curvature does not depend on the axis of rotation! come one man, the curvature is an invariant of the geometry of the sphere, it cannot depend on a physical parameter as the angular velocity (it only depends on the radius of the earth). Although meridians are geodesics, parallels are not! this is why parallels have different curvature, but they do not have any physical meaning. Geodesics are what we feel as straight lines in spherical manifolds (the paths that airplanes undergo), if you connect two points with a parallel you are NOT connecting them by the smallest line, thus the parallels do have a relative curvature with respect to the sphere. So in real life, if you could draw parallels on the surface of the earth you will notice that such parallels have a deviation from what you see as a straight line. This is the extra curvature you are explaining in your video. Is the curvature of an imaginary line, not the real curvature!

[@ronhagberg]

So if you traveled around the earth on the arctic circle, you wouldn't be going a much shorter distance than if you traveled around it on the equator?

[@ronhagberg]

www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Sphere/Cap/SphereCap.htm

[@lordshandyman]

@@ronhagberg You could take that exact same distance you traveled in a circle around the artic circle and make a circle around Kansas City MO. It would be the same curvature as the artic circle.

[@ronhagberg]

The arctic circle is 9,900 miles, I don't think Kansas city is that big.

[@lordshandyman]

@@ronhagberg I'm saying make Kansas City Missouri your center point. Draw your 9,000 mi circle around that.

[@Cassie3636]

Much love for eyes that see❤️

[@ronhagberg]

Thank you!!

[@MaximRecoil]

You're thinking about this wrong. You are right that the imaginary lines of latitude get smaller toward the poles, but those don't represent your view of the horizon. To illustrate this to yourself, just use an extreme example, i.e., suppose the globe model of the Earth is correct and you were standing just 10 feet away from the north or south pole. If you drew a line of latitude here it would be tiny, i.e., just a 10' radius, and you could easily see the curve of that line you drew, but that line has nothing to do with your view of the horizon (the only line of latitude that would match up with your east/west view of the horizon would be the equator when standing on it). It's just a 20' diameter circle on the ground. You could walk around that 20' diameter circle and say you walked around the world, but geometrically it's no different than walking around a 20' diameter circle on your front lawn or anywhere else. You could slice that 20' diameter section off the ground (like you did when you sliced up your foam sphere), stand it up on its edge, then climb up on its edge, and of course you would be able to see a drastic curve on the 20' diameter circle you're standing on, but again, that's not at all representative of your view of the horizon anywhere on a globe Earth. The curvature of a sphere is inherently always going to be the same no matter where you are on it. Look at a classic soccer ball for example, and try to find a patch on it that has a different degree of curvature than any other patch.

[@JesusIsaFlatEarther]

Wow, that means the video from Grand Mere State Park showing the Chicago Skyline was significantly more then 2,400 feet of curvature from 60 miles, using the 8 inch per miles squared formula. While your ball example was good, and I'm sure you could get a math wiz to explain it more precisely. At the end of the day we're still talking about a hypothetical/theoretical curvature of the surface of water as we look at the mirage in the distance.

[@wideawake2814]

I got notified from odysee on this video but nothing from YT. I went to check your channel and what do you know you weren't in my subscription. Anyhow I'm watching this now over on odysee Ron.

[@ronhagberg]

screw tube doesn't want people communicating with each other, I don't get notifications anymore even when people tag me in comments.

[@wideawake2814]

@@ronhagberg Same here Ron. I'm shadow banned when I make comments and nobody sees them but me. I check with my other account and 9 out of 10 go missing especially if I mention anything about the beer bug and depopulation. Basically the arc would be greater looking east to west the further north or south you went. You are correct Ron because as you slice it up you get a tighter circle and as you slice deeper in those circles get bigger with less arc. What's funny though is I've seen picture where they are seeing over a hundred miles in the north and south poles. I'd also say I think you'd notice the speed change going from the equator the north or south poles. Believing the earth is a spinning ball is like believing the beer bug is going to kill you. 🤣😂🤣 Re-subscribing brother.

[@craigburridge950]

Great point bro👍👊💖

[@MustSeed1]

Well done!

[@ronhagberg]

Thank you

[@garywybenga4188]

I've asked the same question numerous times but Glowbeez just get confused

[@avoiceinthewilderness5766]

And how is it when you get in a plane and fly at 5 miles up, which increases the size of the artificial ball you don't increase the distance?

[@ronhagberg]

The earth is not a ball, but I saw a flat earth channel do the math on that and the difference would be negligible, I don't remember the exact numbers but it would be less than a 100 mile difference flying from New York to California .

[@avoiceinthewilderness5766]

@@ronhagberg Yet the ground and in the air is exactly the same milage. There are countless flaws with the ball.

[@mikemcdonald5060]

I’m not sure on this. I think if we were on a globe and you looked in any direction from any position it would always follow the same curve according to the curve they say because if you’re on a sphere with no land masses and no water no matter which way you look from any position you’re always seeing the same curve away from you on either side…according to them. Long live flat earth!

[@wingchunkungfuwins]

I don't think that's true if you look at it as the whole ball you be standing anywhere on the ball should be the exact same.. just take all the lines all the landmasses away and have a blue ball no matter where you are you are basically at the north pole. If it's a perfect sphere

[@fatnblack]

Stick a fork in this debate globelievers