[_ Old Earth _] Where Did the Idea of a Flat Earth Originate?

[Jacks Bratt]

The Bible doesn't really describe the earth. As my previous post pointed out, if one wants to take certain verses as showing the earth is round and flat, one must also take into account verses that show it is rectangular and flat. But that is contradictory--something cannot be both a circle and a rectangle; it is one or the other.

I pointed this out to someone too. Their retort was that you must think of a rectangular table with a circle in the middle and our world is the circular part in the middle with items outside our circular area that we cannot breach...
I thought it was a good explanation if the earth was flat, round and rectangular, all at once.

the earth curves 8" for every mile, then a five mile lake would curve 40" or 3' 4", not 16'. I would like to see the math that shows an 8" drop for every mile.

OK, I'm no mathematician but here goes...

8 inches per mile. So at five miles that's 8 x 5 = 40 inches. However, that's a straight line. A slope, A ramp.
The curve is exponential. So it must be 8 x 5 (squared) = 200 inches or 16.6667 feet.

This site might help. It even calculates the height of your observation from the surface of the earth and gives a picture of the results by diagram.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=5&h0=0&unit=imperial

 

[Edward]

Ya know it could be flat. If science has proven that our universe is a holographic projection, (a mere shadow of a larger reality) then maybe it's being projected onto a flat screen, and we wouldn't even know it lol.

Oh yeah, Rev 6:14 ...And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.../

 

[Barbarian]

Can't help snopes...I know what I saw. I was well below the equator in Brazil on the Paraguay and Bolivian border. It went backwards.

It will, due to the conservation of angular momentum, spin one way or the other. But I can make such a drain go either way, by almost unnoticeable addition of energy in various ways. In many countries located at the equator, such scams are routinely used by locals to gull tourists.

 

[Barbarian]

Ya know it could be flat. If science has proven that our universe is a holographic projection, (a mere shadow of a larger reality) then maybe it's being projected onto a flat screen, and we wouldn't even know it lol.

The evidence suggests a multi-dimensional reality projected on a three-dimensional screen:

Universal extra dimension
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_extra_dimension

 

[Free]

I pointed this out to someone too. Their retort was that you must think of a rectangular table with a circle in the middle and our world is the circular part in the middle with items outside our circular area that we cannot breach...
I thought it was a good explanation if the earth was flat, round and rectangular, all at once.

That is not at all a good explanation as it explains literally nothing. The Bible says the earth is a circle and it also says it has four corners. Either it is a circle or a rectangle. There is simply no way it can be both. Adding in a rectangular table is to say that something other than the earth is rectangular, which is not what the Bible says.

OK, I'm no mathematician but here goes...

8 inches per mile. So at five miles that's 8 x 5 = 40 inches. However, that's a straight line. A slope, A ramp.
The curve is exponential. So it must be 8 x 5 (squared) = 200 inches or 16.6667 feet.

This site might help. It even calculates the height of your observation from the surface of the earth and gives a picture of the results by diagram.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=5&h0=0&unit=imperial

First, an 8 inch drop per mile has nothing to do with a ramp; it was by definition the drop in view due to the curvature of the earth. Second, a curve is not necessarily exponential. A constant radius, such as that with a sphere, like the earth, is not exponential precisely because it is constant. The term exponential not only means having to do with an exponent but that it is ever increasing. An exponential curve is constantly increasing and as such has no radius. So there is no basis for which any number in this case must be squared. Third, the link you gave confirms a small number, although the methodology is suspect. Fourth, light refracts, so it is possible that is why we can see farther. Fifth, if the earth was flat, one should be able to stand on the east coast of North America and with a telescope, be able to see Africa and Europe, but one cannot because the earth is a sphere.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

That is not at all a good explanation as it explains literally nothing. The Bible says the earth is a circle and it also says it has four corners. Either it is a circle or a rectangle. There is simply no way it can be both. Adding in a rectangular table is to say that something other than the earth is rectangular, which is not what the Bible says.

Ok, put an impenitrable dome over the round flat earth in the middle of the table and let an angel stand at each corner of the table while the round earth is in the center.

If you want to toss out the idea based on that, it's your call.

First, an 8 inch drop per mile has nothing to do with a ramp; it was by definition the drop in view due to the curvature of the earth. Second, a curve is not necessarily exponential. A constant radius, such as that with a sphere, like the earth, is not exponential precisely because it is constant. The term exponential not only means having to do with an exponent but that it is ever increasing. An exponential curve is constantly increasing and as such has no radius. So there is no basis for which any number in this case must be squared. Third, the link you gave confirms a small number, although the methodology is suspect. Fourth, light refracts, so it is possible that is why we can see farther. Fifth, if the earth was flat, one should be able to stand on the west coast of North America and with a telescope, be able to see Africa and Europe, but one cannot because the earth is a sphere.

OK, so, you obviously didn't go to the link I showed you. In order to calculate the curve of any sphere the size of the earth, the math is "the distance, in miles, squared, multiplied by 8 inches.....I didn't make it up. It's all over the internet. If you want, you can google it too. The truth will not change just because you don't understand, doubt, deny or refuse to research it.

 

[Free]

Ok, put an impenitrable dome over the round flat earth in the middle of the table and let an angel stand at each corner of the table while the round earth is in the center.

If you want to toss out the idea based on that, it's your call.

Of course I'm going to toss that out, for the reason I gave previously. Now we're being asked to put a dome over a round flat earth in the middle of a table. Nothing has changed except the addition of a dome. We still have the Bible stating the earth is flat and round, and flat and rectangular. But both cannot be true. One cannot have something that is both a circle and a rectangle at the same time, by definition.

OK, so, you obviously didn't go to the link I showed you. In order to calculate the curve of any sphere the size of the earth, the math is "the distance, in miles, squared, multiplied by 8 inches.....I didn't make it up. It's all over the internet. If you want, you can google it too. The truth will not change just because you don't understand, doubt, deny or refuse to research it.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "Third, the link you gave confirms a small number, although the methodology is suspect." That means that I most certainly went to the link you gave. The link does not square the miles and it doesn't make sense to. The square of a distance gives an area defined by an equal length and width; the area of a square. To then multiply the area of a square by a number, 8 in this case, is to give a volume, not a distance.

For example, if we take 5 miles and square that, we get 25 square miles. If we were to multiply that by 1 mile (to keep the math simple), we get 25 cubic miles.

I am no mathematician but I have taken several university level engineering math courses. That was some time ago but I believe I still have an adequate grasp of basic math.

I am also curious as to why no response to my fifth point: if the earth was flat, one should be able to stand on the east coast of North America and with a telescope, be able to see Africa and Europe, but one cannot because the earth is a sphere.

 

[Barbarian]

OK, so, you obviously didn't go to the link I showed you. In order to calculate the curve of any sphere the size of the earth, the math is "the distance, in miles, squared, multiplied by 8 inches.....I didn't make it up. It's all over the internet. If you want, you can google it too. The truth will not change just because you don't understand, doubt, deny or refuse to research it.

As you said, it's not a straight surface. It curves away, and that is why your formula works.

 

[Mustard Socks]

Where Did the Idea of a Flat Earth Originate?

http://www.midwestapologetics.org/articles/bible/flatearth.htm

And yet Draper was a scientist. Rather than attacking biblical Christianity, I'd say Mr.Draper's efforts in promoting a biblical proof of flat earth did more to reflect badly on his own credentials as a scientist.

I think this article is a good read also about Mr. Draper.
The Art of Forgetting: John W. Draper and the Rhetorical Dimensions of History


It does make for some interesting ventures into artistic impressions of what a flat earth would look like though.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Of course I'm going to toss that out, for the reason I gave previously. Now we're being asked to put a dome over a round flat earth in the middle of a table. Nothing has changed except the addition of a dome. We still have the Bible stating the earth is flat and round, and flat and rectangular. But both cannot be true. One cannot have something that is both a circle and a rectangle at the same time, by definition.

Ok, so we see this differently. That's of no consequence as if the world is flat, I have more to worry about understanding than a square round earth, both at the same time....

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "Third, the link you gave confirms a small number, although the methodology is suspect." That means that I most certainly went to the link you gave. The link does not square the miles and it doesn't make sense to. The square of a distance gives an area defined by an equal length and width; the area of a square. To then multiply the area of a square by a number, 8 in this case, is to give a volume, not a distance.

You are correct, the area of a square that is 5 units by 5 units is 25 square units. That is basic math.

In this instance, however, the squaring of the distance is not to calculate an area. It is to calculate the compounding of the distance of 8 inches per mile.

Again, 8 inches per mile over five miles would be 40 inches..... That's the slope of a road, roof, hill, any ramp. It's a straight line. This is why my roof on my shed is a 4/12 pitch. It rises 12 inches every four feet from the eve to the peek. A roof on a building that is 24 feet wide would have the roof rise to a height of 3 feet at the peek.

A skate board ramp is curved. You cannot use this math to build the skateboard half pipe. You need to square the distance as you do in calculating the curve of any ball, sphere, earth, etc.

This is due to the fact that on a sphere, the change is exponential. Therefore, the first mile will drop 8 inches from my feet, on a curved plane. If the next mile dropped 8 inches plus the first 8 inches, that's 16 inches. However, this way you are connecting straight lines. This is not the case on a sphere the contour is curved. This means that the at two mile the drop from my original position is 24 inches ( or 2.66 feet). This is 2x2x8. Or two mile squared times 8 inches.

For 10 miles the equation is 10x10x8. For a product of 66.6867 feet

I am no mathematician but I have taken several university level engineering math courses. That was some time ago but I believe I still have an adequate grasp of basic math.

I am no mathematician either. In fact high school math just about did me in. Then, when I took my mechanical engineering technology in post secondary, it all made sense due to the "X's" and "Y's" all having values like coefficients of friction, expansion, contraction etc.

With your background, you should easily be able to understand what I have just stated. I did not make it up any more than I made up that water freezes at zero degrees centigrade and boils at 100.

Here is a chart. Again, you can find these anywhere with google. Some go outright complicated, who knows why. In the end it is always the same simple math, an object that is 50 miles away should be 1666.6666 feet down over the curve of the earth, from where my eyes are viewing. 50 x 50 x 8 = 20000 inches. 20000 / 12 = 1666.3666 feet.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

I am also curious as to why no response to my fifth point: if the earth was flat, one should be able to stand on the east coast of North America and with a telescope, be able to see Africa and Europe, but one cannot because the earth is a sphere.

I wanted to save a response to this part of your response for it's own post. This is one thing that is observable and makes me seriously question the globe earth. From what I have researched, the earth is either flat or a way bigger than we have been told.

There are many examples of people seeing things that should be below the curve of the earth. It is an observable test that you can do for yourself, if you dare. Some have used Lazar beams and the results are disturbing for a globe believer, like myself.

To answer your question about looking from North America to Africa, I don't know why someone doesn't try this. What would be really nice is if NASA would turn the HUBBLE space telescope around and give us a true pic of our earth, instead of presenting composite fabricated CGI pictures of earth. (They admit that they are CGI, so don't tell me I'm in error. They said so themselves at NASA)

Anyway....

Let's look into this. From this link: https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/29/22-is-the-earth-a-sphere-lighthouses-and-distant-lands/
we get these facts. How can this be, on a globe?


“The distance at which lights can be seen at sea entirely disposes of the idea that we are living on a huge ball.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (58)


The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.


The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world was a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight!


The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth was a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon!


The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!

There is the Bedford level experiment shown in this short vid. It is quite famous and I have read about it in different articles.

This vid is from a flat earth guy that set out to prove on way or another. At the 3 minute mark, so you don't waste too much time, it shows mountain peeks that are all at proper heights even though the are up to about 30 miles between them. Things like this really confuse me.
Maybe you have an explanation.

Something is not right here. Like I said, I'm not a flat earther due to questions of my own that I have not got answers for yet. However, there is a reason that this flat earth view is taking off like wild fire. Just the other day, driving home from work, on a lonely country highway in southern Ontario, I saw a sign..... THE EARTH IS FLAT.... go figure.

 

[Free]

Ok, so we see this differently. That's of no consequence as if the world is flat, I have more to worry about understanding than a square round earth, both at the same time....

By definition a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square. It is one or the other, not both.

You are correct, the area of a square that is 5 units by 5 units is 25 square units. That is basic math.

In this instance, however, the squaring of the distance is not to calculate an area. It is to calculate the compounding of the distance of 8 inches per mile.

Again, 8 inches per mile over five miles would be 40 inches..... That's the slope of a road, roof, hill, any ramp. It's a straight line. This is why my roof on my shed is a 4/12 pitch. It rises 12 inches every four feet from the eve to the peek. A roof on a building that is 24 feet wide would have the roof rise to a height of 3 feet at the peek.

Sorry but there is no such thing as "in this instance the squaring of the distance...is to calculate the compounding distance." Squaring a distance gives the area of a square, in units squared. Having looked more closely at the math, with the diagram you provided, you are correct about the ramp versus the curve.

A skate board ramp is curved. You cannot use this math to build the skateboard half pipe. You need to square the distance as you do in calculating the curve of any ball, sphere, earth, etc.

This is due to the fact that on a sphere, the change is exponential. Therefore, the first mile will drop 8 inches from my feet, on a curved plane. If the next mile dropped 8 inches plus the first 8 inches, that's 16 inches. However, this way you are connecting straight lines. This is not the case on a sphere the contour is curved. This means that the at two mile the drop from my original position is 24 inches ( or 2.66 feet). This is 2x2x8. Or two mile squared times 8 inches.

For 10 miles the equation is 10x10x8. For a product of 66.6867 feet

You are right about the curve but your math is quite wrong. It just so happens that squaring the distance and multiplying by 8 gives a close approximation but is not at all the proper math. As I have stated, squaring a distance gives the area of a square. The proper math is given in the picture you provided, although they could have made it a little clearer in the diagram.

I am no mathematician either. In fact high school math just about did me in. Then, when I took my mechanical engineering technology in post secondary, it all made sense due to the "X's" and "Y's" all having values like coefficients of friction, expansion, contraction etc.

With your background, you should easily be able to understand what I have just stated. I did not make it up any more than I made up that water freezes at zero degrees centigrade and boils at 100.

Here is a chart. Again, you can find these anywhere with google. Some go outright complicated, who knows why. In the end it is always the same simple math, an object that is 50 miles away should be 1666.6666 feet down over the curve of the earth, from where my eyes are viewing. 50 x 50 x 8 = 20000 inches. 20000 / 12 = 1666.3666 feet.

Of course, such a diagram and formulae presume a perfectly smooth surface of the earth, which anyone can see is not at all the case. That would at least account for some discrepancy, but I suspect that there is more to it than that. It is an interesting problem, I'll give it that much.

 

[JohnDB]

Isn't this notion of a flat earth kinda like the proving that a horse doesn't have 4 legs but actually has 5?

 

[Free]

I wanted to save a response to this part of your response for it's own post. This is one thing that is observable and makes me seriously question the globe earth. From what I have researched, the earth is either flat or a way bigger than we have been told.

There are many examples of people seeing things that should be below the curve of the earth. It is an observable test that you can do for yourself, if you dare. Some have used Lazar beams and the results are disturbing for a globe believer, like myself.

To answer your question about looking from North America to Africa, I don't know why someone doesn't try this. What would be really nice is if NASA would turn the HUBBLE space telescope around and give us a true pic of our earth, instead of presenting composite fabricated CGI pictures of earth. (They admit that they are CGI, so don't tell me I'm in error. They said so themselves at NASA)

Anyway....

Let's look into this. From this link: https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/29/22-is-the-earth-a-sphere-lighthouses-and-distant-lands/
we get these facts. How can this be, on a globe?


“The distance at which lights can be seen at sea entirely disposes of the idea that we are living on a huge ball.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (58)


The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.


The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world was a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight!


The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth was a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon!


The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!

There is the Bedford level experiment shown in this short vid. It is quite famous and I have read about it in different articles.

This vid is from a flat earth guy that set out to prove on way or another. At the 3 minute mark, so you don't waste too much time, it shows mountain peeks that are all at proper heights even though the are up to about 30 miles between them. Things like this really confuse me.
Maybe you have an explanation.

Something is not right here. Like I said, I'm not a flat earther due to questions of my own that I have not got answers for yet. However, there is a reason that this flat earth view is taking off like wild fire. Just the other day, driving home from work, on a lonely country highway in southern Ontario, I saw a sign..... THE EARTH IS FLAT.... go figure.

For views from space, look up views from the space station, no need for Hubble. Some very good videos too.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

By definition a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square. It is one or the other, not both.

Ya, I kinda left this argument back one post....

Sorry but there is no such thing as "in this instance the squaring of the distance...is to calculate the compounding distance." Squaring a distance gives the area of a square, in units squared. Having looked more closely at the math, with the diagram you provided, you are correct about the ramp versus the curve.

You have seen my math. You have seen the charts. Check it out and tell me if my math doesn't give the numbers that the chart shows.
The chart at this site"

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html

The calculations at this site:

https://aplanetruth.info/2015/07/03...vature-of-the-earth-basic-spherical-geometry/

This site:

http://flatearthwiki.com/index.php?title=Earth's_Curvature

Punch numbers into this and compare my math:

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

Or just type "chart of the curve of the earth" in Google and go to images....my math will work and match the chart.

You are right about the curve but your math is quite wrong. It just so happens that squaring the distance and multiplying by 8 gives a close approximation but is not at all the proper math. As I have stated, squaring a distance gives the area of a square. The proper math is given in the picture you provided, although they could have made it a little clearer in the diagram.

My math may be off by a few decimal places. However, it is sufficient to show that this ole earth curves a whole lot more in 5 miles than I used to believe. To such an extent that some things that I can see........I just plain shouldn't be able to.

Of course, such a diagram and formulae presume a perfectly smooth surface of the earth, which anyone can see is not at all the case. That would at least account for some discrepancy, but I suspect that there is more to it than that. It is an interesting problem, I'll give it that much.

Of course they do. How on earth would you account for hills, valley's, rivers, streams, eskers, drumlins, lakes, etc? I apologize for not putting in a disclaimer regarding the irregularities in the earths surface. However, most of the places where the observations are seen are on open water.... Water always finds level, and most lakes are can be observed on days where the heaving of the water would be minimal.

So, square the distance, in miles.... times by 8 inches.... that will get you into a pretty good idea of how far the object should be, over the hump of the curve of the earth. Period.

It's also still useful for calculating the area of a square....

 

[Jacks Bratt]

For views from space, look up views from the space station, no need for Hubble. Some very good videos too.

All the pictures of the globe are, admittedly by NASA, composite pictures. They are photo shopped from a bunch of strips of photographs.
All video is taken with a fish eye lens. All straight lines near the border will be convex or concave...the only straight line that will be straight, is through the center of the frame.
There are absolutely no shots of our beautiful globe earth, in it's entirety, the whole enchilada, from space. They are all CGI. The continents are all different sizes... they are fabricated.
There may not be a need for you, but there are millions of people out there that are searching their browsers for proof of whether the earth is a globe or flat.

So, take hubble, turn it around and take a live shot of this world......end this madness.

 

[Free]

Ya, I kinda left this argument back one post....

You just left it without actually dealing with it.

You have seen my math. You have seen the charts. Check it out and tell me if my math doesn't give the numbers that the chart shows.
The chart at this site"

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html

The calculations at this site:

https://aplanetruth.info/2015/07/03...vature-of-the-earth-basic-spherical-geometry/

This site:

http://flatearthwiki.com/index.php?title=Earth's_Curvature

Punch numbers into this and compare my math:

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

Or just type "chart of the curve of the earth" in Google and go to images....my math will work and match the chart.

That some use the same incorrect math does not mean that their math is correct. As I stated, it just so happens to give a very close approximation but that doesn't mean the actual math is correct. The answer is found through trigonometry, as your picture and diagram show.

My math may be off by a few decimal places. However, it is sufficient to show that this ole earth curves a whole lot more in 5 miles than I used to believe. To such an extent that some things that I can see........I just plain shouldn't be able to.

I clearly stated it gives a close approximation; my point is just that the math itself isn't correct.

So, square the distance, in miles.... times by 8 inches.... that will get you into a pretty good idea of how far the object should be, over the hump of the curve of the earth. Period.

I have agreed that it gives a pretty good idea. The problem is that when you multiply any distance unit by itself, you get that unit squared, which is area; you do not get increased distance of that unit. For example, miles times miles equals miles squared (area of a square), not more miles; kilometers times kilometers gives kilometers squared (area of a square), not more kilometers; inches times inches equals inches squared (area of a square), not more inches. Unit x unit = unit².

To then multiply an area by an additional distance once again does not give additional distance, but the volume of a rectangular prism or cube, of which the unit is cubed (because one has multiplied by the same unit). Unit² x unit = unit³.

It's also still useful for calculating the area of a square....

Only useful for calculating the area of a square. But, yeah, I kinda left this argument back one post...

 

[Free]

All the pictures of the globe are, admittedly by NASA, composite pictures. They are photo shopped from a bunch of strips of photographs.
All video is taken with a fish eye lens. All straight lines near the border will be convex or concave...the only straight line that will be straight, is through the center of the frame.
There are absolutely no shots of our beautiful globe earth, in it's entirety, the whole enchilada, from space. They are all CGI. The continents are all different sizes... they are fabricated.
There may not be a need for you, but there are millions of people out there that are searching their browsers for proof of whether the earth is a globe or flat.

So, take hubble, turn it around and take a live shot of this world......end this madness.

Lol! There are plenty of videos from the space station as it orbits earth, live even I think, showing that it is indeed round. As I had previously stated, a conspiracy of this magnitude would involve thousands upon thousands of people, around the globe in different countries and forms of government, across decades, and as such would be utterly impossible to keep secret. There is no conspiracy.

I see no reason to continue this conversation. I have already wasted too much time on it.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

You just left it without actually dealing with it.

I dealt with it. We disagree. I said that a rectangular table with a dome earth set in the middle would suit me fine for it being both round and square at the same time.
Can we agree to disagree? The point is mute to me. It changes nothing in the quest for truth about the globe or flat earth.

That some use the same incorrect math does not mean that their math is correct. As I stated, it just so happens to give a very close approximation but that doesn't mean the actual math is correct. The answer is found through trigonometry, as your picture and diagram show.


I clearly stated it gives a close approximation; my point is just that the math itself isn't correct.


I have agreed that it gives a pretty good idea. The problem is that when you multiply any distance unit by itself, you get that unit squared, which is area; you do not get increased distance of that unit. For example, miles times miles equals miles squared (area of a square), not more miles; kilometers times kilometers gives kilometers squared (area of a square), not more kilometers; inches times inches equals inches squared (area of a square), not more inches. Unit x unit = unit².

To then multiply an area by an additional distance once again does not give additional distance, but the volume of a rectangular prism or cube, of which the unit is cubed (because one has multiplied by the same unit). Unit² x unit = unit³.

Only useful for calculating the area of a square. But, yeah, I kinda left this argument back one post...

OK, let me make this clear. The mathematical function of squaring a unit, number, what ever, is NOT ONLY designed for calculations the square units of area. Not even close. It IS the function used to do so, yet not exclusively for this. There are a myriad of equations which use the "Xsquared" as a mathematical process.
The acceleration of an object, in free fall, due to gravity is 32feet per second squared
Or, this from Wiki:
The squaring function is related to distance through the Pythagorean theorem and its generalization, the parallelogram law. Euclidean distance is not a smooth function: the three-dimensional graph of distance from a fixed point forms a cone, with a non-smooth point at the tip of the cone. However, the square of the distance (denoted d2 or r2), which has a paraboloid as its graph, is a smooth and analytic function. The dot product of a Euclidean vector with itself is equal to the square of its length: v⋅v = v2. This is further generalised to quadratic forms in linear spaces. The inertia tensor in mechanics is an example of a quadratic form. It demonstrates a quadratic relation of the moment of inertia to the size (length).

Tell me, using the trigonometrical process that you please, calculate the drop, in feet, that an object would be at if it was 50 miles away on the ocean surface, while you were standing on the shore at sea level.

The only issue with my math is that it may not be exactly 8 inches per mile but rather 7. xxxx. decimal values.

My answer, using my math is 1666.667 feet. What is your answer?

 

[Free]

OK, let me make this clear. The mathematical function of squaring a unit, number, what ever, is NOT ONLY designed for calculations the square units of area. Not even close. It IS the function used to do so, yet not exclusively for this. There are a myriad of equations which use the "Xsquared" as a mathematical process.
The acceleration of an object, in free fall, due to gravity is 32feet per second squared

I am well aware of numbers being squared for use in various formulae but you are quite ignoring what I have been saying. Any unit multiplied by that same unit, results in that unit². A clear example is the one you just gave 32ft/s². How do you think it became s²? Because the time unit s was multiplied by the time unit s. In many equations units get multiplied and divided, and that effects what the resulting units will be.

A number squared with or without a unit does result in a larger number but once units are involved, the units get squared. Units play a huge role in math, physics, chemistry, etc., because that is precisely how one comes up with things like ft/s or ft/s². Formulae express certain information and relationships symbolically; it's how scientists know what information is being stated and how the result applies.

Or, this from Wiki:
The squaring function is related to distance through the Pythagorean theorem and its generalization, the parallelogram law. Euclidean distance is not a smooth function: the three-dimensional graph of distance from a fixed point forms a cone, with a non-smooth point at the tip of the cone. However, the square of the distance (denoted d2 or r2), which has a paraboloid as its graph, is a smooth and analytic function. The dot product of a Euclidean vector with itself is equal to the square of its length: v⋅v = v2. This is further generalised to quadratic forms in linear spaces. The inertia tensor in mechanics is an example of a quadratic form. It demonstrates a quadratic relation of the moment of inertia to the size (length).

That has nothing to do with what we at discussing.

Tell me, using the trigonometrical process that you please, calculate the drop, in feet, that an object would be at if it was 50 miles away on the ocean surface, while you were standing on the shore at sea level.

The only issue with my math is that it may not be exactly 8 inches per mile but rather 7. xxxx. decimal values.

My answer, using my math is 1666.667 feet. What is your answer?

0.31574886 miles or 1667.1539808 ft. You'll notice that agrees exactly with the diagram you gave, the very one that gives the trig functions for figuring it out.

Use your way for 2000 miles, 3000 miles, and 3959 miles.