Earth “curvature” in metric?

Eric Dubay’s FE forum was just banned from Proboards for violation of your typical anti-rayciss TOS. Maybe they found FE to be offenthifth or in bad tasthte. There was a discussion there about what the actual calculation should be for the supposed curvature of the earth. This was a comment (now only existing here, we imagine) from Ricky Hammond, novice FE-er:

1. Earth’s mean radius according to is about 3,959 miles.
2. Earth’s mean circumference (when calculated) according to the same website is about 24,881 miles.
3. When we calculate that the Earth’s circumference (24,881 miles) divided up into degrees (360 degrees in a circle), we find that 1 degree would be 69.1138888888888889 miles.
4. 1 mile by comparison would only be 0.0144688718299103734 degrees.
5. With a triangle with point A at the center of the ball earth, point B at any location on the surface of the earth, and point C exactly one mile of traveling across the surface of the earth away from point B, the angle formed at the center of the earth would also be 0.0144688718299103734 degrees.
6. Since points B and C are exactly the same distance from point A and form from the same angle, the two angles formed at the surface of the earth must then be equal.
7. Since any triangle contains 180 degrees, and with the angle at Earth’s center being 0.0144688718299103734 degrees, we must use subtraction to discover that the remaining angles (which are equal) add up to 179.9855311281700896266 degrees.
8. Dividing in half, we find that either of the two surface angles are 89.9927655640850448133 degrees.
9. With the line of sight from point A to point B going in a straight line above the curve the earth would produce in 1 mile combined with the angle of the center of the earth, we find that the surface angle formed by point A plus the 89.9927655640850448133 degrees of the inward angles add up to exactly 90 degrees (draw this on paper if you’re confused already).
10. With the angle formed at the surface of the earth being 90 minus 89.9927655640850448133, we find that the angle is exactly 0.0072344359149551867 degrees.
11. With the line of sight towards point B, is thus formed another 90 degree angle from the line of sight to point B.
12. With the core triangle two lines meeting at the center of the earth each being 3,959 miles long, we can measure that one degree of that triangle would be 3,959 miles divided into the corresponding 89.9927655640850448133 degrees. That is about 43.992425115336004037324 miles per degree of the core triangle.
13. With the line at the top of the core triangle and at the bottom of the surface triangle corresponding to the core angle of 0.0144688718299103734 degrees, we can multiply this angle by 43.992425115336004037324 miles to find that the distance of this line is 0.6365207604807267183115613182834683767816 miles long.
14. With the base line just calculated as being 0.6365207604807267183115613182834683767816 miles, and since the corresponding surface angle is exactly 90 degrees, we find that 1 degree in this triangle is 0.0070724528942302968701284590920385375197956 miles.
15. With the angle at point A being 0.0072344359149551867 degrees, we can calculate the corresponding side (which is how far the line of sight is away from the curvature of the earth in 1 mile) is 0.00005116520722484841600508440455632175872145506150553814383852 miles.
16. 0.00005116520722484841600508440455632175872145506150553814383852 miles is 3.2418275297663949885 inches.
This means that the correct amount of downward curvature is NOT 8 inches per miles squared, but about 3.2 inches per mile squared. However, due to the fact that the earth is allegedly spherical rather than a downward slope, this figure must be multiplied by 2. We then reach the amount of downward curvature in one mile: 0.00010233041444969683201016880911264351744291012301107628767704 miles, or 6.4836550595327912761642957453770932651827853939817935872172544 inches. In other words, 6.5 inches. Why the large discrepency? Because the calculation of 8 inches per mile squared was originally made about 200 years ago with the book “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe”. 200 years ago, there were not advanced calculators, nor was there a precise number for the circumference of the earth. Now that more calculations assuming a round ball earth have been done and since we now have more advanced calculators, the correct amount of curvature is thus about 6.5 inches per the distance squared. An easy way to utilize this correct number without going through all of my 16 steps is to simply do this:
distance in miles x distance in miles x 6.5 inches = inches of downward curvature.
Take, for example, the famous Bedford Level experiments. Robotham was able to see across the level 6 miles. Using the simple above calculation, we find:
6 miles x 6 miles x 6.5 inches = 234 inches of downward curvature. To make it more simple we can convert those inches to feet by dividing it into 12. This would make it 19.5 feet of downward curvature, not 24. While this may seem insignificant (either way, Robotham shouldn’t have been able to see the boat if the earth was round), it is necessary for me to put this so that future calculations of Earth’s impossible curvature can be more precise.

With any sphere, the radius is equal to 1/4 of the curvature of that sphere. With the imaginary ball earth having a radius of 3,959 miles, and a circumference of about 24,881 miles, using a fourth of the earth’s circumference (6220.25 miles) gives us:

6220.25 miles x 6220.25 miles x 6.5 inches = 251494815.40625 inches = 3969.2994855784406566 miles. That’s just about 10 miles off over a distance of 6,220.25 miles! Using the longer number (6.4836550…) gives us something more exact:

6220.25 miles x 6220.25 miles x 6.4836550595327912761642957453770932651827853939817935872172544 inches = 250862404.9776920302104230652354837419268207219730245935216143699912224 inches = 3959.318260380240375795818580105488351117751293766170983611337910215 miles

That’s just about 3,959 miles – EXACTLY the same as the radius of the alleged ball earth. I believe this to be mathematical proof that the correct amount of curvature is not 8 inches per mile squared but 6.5 inches per mile squared. If I have made a mathematical mistake, please don’t hesitate to point it out.

It seems to us that the simplified calculation at the end only works with imperial (we have yet to verify it with metric). Further calculations and comments are offered in this video and its comments, which are suggested reading:

And lastly there’s this site that claims to be able to do it in both imperial and metric (though we are unable to verify its calculations and the odd illustration on the bottom where the observer and the target appear to be leaning). This one is more complete and seems to give better results.

In any case the translation of Dubay’s book has hit this snag. It is indeed easy to calculate this alleged curvature according to the older official numbers and the imperial trick.

As for the modern situation and the rest of the world, everything is in metric and for very good reason. Metric may be the only good thing to come out of the french revolution, which brings calculations much closer to the common man and out of the hands of scribes and sneaky guilds making mountains of molehills in their greed for zogbux. It’s funny, then, that NASA, supposed to be using scientific measurement (metric) whips out imperial for what is supposedly a very important and incessantly necessary calculation on our curved, spinning (prevaricating), wobbling baal flying through nihilist space at unfathomable speeds in five different directions simultaneously. It would be just one of a huge list of calculations according to copernican standard that engineers in public projects would all need to be using constantly. Yet online (as you see with the geighgle search in the video above), you get crappy, useless answers. In the calculations above, you see that NASA isn’t even officially putting out earth circumference numbers, but funnels them through – some responsibility pit where they can always claim no connection. Also notice their response to visible super flat horizons everywhere was issued through GQ, a fagmag for metrosexual iDiots.

So maybe, Gentlemen, we should advise you to not go down this rabbit hole, as it seems rigged. A central theme in all G-science (globalist, geometrist, geigh, geighgle, g-forced, g-string flimsy, gimmel [3, 33, 6…the 33 sections of the flat earth known only to the occult(ed) (moon) secret societies….)…is that we “little people” aren’t allowed access to the inner secrets of high science, filled with booga booga (hidden, illogical, feminine, emotion-based, relative calculations), satanic sacrifice (like vivisection they do in the same labs, same labcoats, in hiding and secret to increase the fear effect), and extreme graft/corruption/public theft. It could very well be that you read the clues in this post, try coming up with your own system of metric “curvature” calculation, only to run into too many problems to ever finish.


Pear? Avocado? Celery? Go to your local supermarket for the latest NASA lie.

Further, NASA is apparently claiming via some ridiculous jewniversity monkey that the earth’s real shape is now officially that of a pear. In yet other articles, NASA claims the real shape is like an avocado. They’re such bald-faced liars that it concerns them not in the slightest that these statements then publicly announce that all their “earth photos” showing it as very round were fake.

Further yet, finding such a curvature is only one in an endless list of issues and sometimes fantastically absurd calculations required by the insane copernican/masonic earth model.

This entry was posted in FE, modern science, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s