I will do the math on the weekend. Thats a great puzzle.
Don't believe we live on a ball but did the math for start/end and also some cities in between and it checks out even when you adjust for the elevation. Polar radius difference between Lake Itasca and each location is in meters. This implies the Mississippi River is flowing uphill if we are to take the polar formula seriously.
Nice table, thanks a lot! I have made the calculus a few years ago, when I first met the subject on a flat earth forum, but as much as I remember I have worked with six decimals and the difference was more than six thousands meters. Maybe I was wrong somewhere...
I'm not sure what you are doing with these calculations, a more thorough explanation would be helpful.
No, because Mississippi flows from Lake Itasca, not from the center of the supposed ellipsoid, so we need to know how much is Mississippi climbing in WGS84, and that climbing is the difference calculated by pushamaku.
You are wrong, there are many round earthers here and I would like to hear their explanation.
I'm not going to get into the concave model here because it tends to rile up the natives, but I recommend you look into it. I haven't done the math so I can't comment on the numbers in your thought experiment, but in the concave model all rivers do seem to climb if viewed from that perspective. And as far as the concave earth model in general, there is much more evidence than just the rectilineator experiment. If you are interested in the concave earth model, check out Wild Heretics website, there's some good evidence there. But there's a lot more that has yet to be published.
Just so my limited mind can consider it? Are you basically stating this:
For me, "evidence" is when I have math to prove what the eyes are seeing because the light curves much more than the refraction allows. I was reading wildheretic.com years ago and I am checking it from time to time, but I did not see enough math yet! All I know is I can prove convex earth wrong, but I cannot prove concave earth and flat earth wrong, so both flat and concave are on the study right now.
The link to rolf is dead or broken
Well, when I tried to show people here that mathematical evidence of a concave earth exists, I was shot down and told math doesn't matter. Apparently only sensory and some cherry picked photographic evidence counts to these flat earth believers. I say that because they poo-pooed the video and photographic evidence of star trails which clearly prove the earth is a sphere. Without any shadow of doubt. The response is basically looking for a magical projection system to support their pet theory.
Im not a subscriber to the heliocentric model, i do understand that model a little at least. From what I know if the Earth was spherical then level would be perpindicular from the center. Water would not be flowing up hill. Existence of rivers, lakes and oceans seem to work fine on flat and sphere concepts. My understanding may be off of course.
My apologies! I have wrote from the memory and I forgot the line... your link is the site of Rolf Kepler and an English reader can click the UK flag. Thank you!
I have read about Mostafa Abdelkader on a flat earth forum, but I was unable to find a pdf wrote by him, so I cannot comment. As I told you, I cannot dismiss concave earth because I have read that when you go up with a baloon the horizon is rising which is impossible on an ellipsoid where horizon should descend from the eyes level. The fact that the rectilineator experiment is criticized but never repeated is another red flag.
It does not matter if you are on a sphere or you are on an ellipsoid, if you wrote that you understand the theory you should be able to understant that the Mississippi is flowing uphill. Otherwise you understand nothing. Lets pretend that you are an ant trying to push a grain of sand from the middle of an american football ball to the tip of the ball: do you spend energy for that (so called gravitation is to the center of the ball and you are on the surface)? Are you going uphill from an observer which is in the center of the ball?
Yes, I'd like to see some data on this question as well. With one caveat, upon reaching appropriate altitude, flaps parallel to the wings. That is what always intrigued me. The flaps which provide lift were, according to my schooling, the big breakthrough which enabled an airplane to rise up to a flying altitude. This would be of the utmost importance in a concave earth, but common sense tells us it shouldn't be very important on a convex earth, since the earth already drops away. If anything, once up the flaps should go down to keep from flying off into space. Obviously there's a lot more to it than my simple comment, but I feel it's a valid consideration.
If the flaps are not in horizontal position, the altimeter will show. I am interested in cruising altitude where you will set authomatic pilot on a big plane. As I do not know the corrections applied by an authomatic pilot, I would like a small plane pilot testimony. The drag could be estimated from the mass of the plane, but is covered by the motive force of the motor. So, I am at a cruising altitude with my chosen speed, on a fair weather: am I able to maintain the altitude untill I have fuel for the landing only? Do I need to compensate up or down from time to time?
No, we are talking about the radius difference on the oblate spheroid model.
In the ball theory, tilted at 23 degrees, spinning at X mph, then the Mississippi River would flow uphill and down hill depending on which side of the rotation it’s on.
Nice explanations against round earth, but the concave earth is dismissed too fast: look at the picture of New York taken almost eighty years ago with a teleobjective of US Army http://rolf-keppler.de/enewyork.htm! Does it show an upward curvature?
What you are envisioning is akin to:
As Rolf Kepler showed the light traveling along a curved path and, more than that, the degree of curvature is changing every hour, I cannot dismiss your variant, you could be right.
