ResearchFlatMoon | Where did you get R???? RIGHT HERE @ResearchFlatMoon | Uploaded September 2021 | Updated October 2024, 1 hour ago.
In this episode we look at how we determined and verified the radius of the earth. Scientific Congruence is when you measure an object by different means and arrive at the same results, suggesting the results are correct.

Here we compare Eratosthenes, the Sextant, Al Biruni, Al Bob Runi and the Haversine Formula.

Note- here is the original video on the 'method Al Bob Runi'. youtu.be/u9F_OwH3ZQk

Remember to hit 'Like' and 'Subscribe', your support of this channel is appreciated.

$Radius of the Earth | The Method Al BOB Runi.... We have a number of ways to determine the radius of the earth. Today Bob introduces a new one to the debunking community. This is perfect to use with low camera angle We see too far videos. No equipment is needed, you just have to identify how much of an object at a known distance is hidden. Very simple formula (d^2 - h^2)/2h... One note for the purists... What we see on earth is affected by refraction, so this technique actually has a second function. Measuring the horizon and determining the hidden amounts of buildings, oil rigs and mountains from a low angle will give a refracted radius according to this approach, comparing the refracted radius to the known radius of the earth is a good way to estimate the amount of refraction in an observation. Last night I did a little math on the board. Looking at Walter Bislins Earth Curvature Calculator, taking an observer height of 0 and a distance of 9.41 miles I saw the non-refracte hidden ws 58 feet and the refracted hidden was 48 feet (standard refraction). I applied my formula to both. The non-refracted result was within 1% of the actual radius of the earth. The refracted result was about 1.22 x the actual radius. Correcting the standard 7/6R Refraction (ie multiplying the results by 6/7) gave me a result within 5% of the actual. Not bad. One source of error is the way distance is measured. With Al- Biruni and Al Bob Runi, we look at distance to the object as the straight leg of a triangle. In reality that is an approximation as the distance between the observer and the target is along the curved surface of the earth, which is slightly less than the distance of the straight leg of the triangle. Correcting the distance for the non-refracted value (58 feet) our error in radius goes from 71km to 60km (out of a true radius of more than 6300 km). Use the method for what it is designed-. to make a good estimate of the apparent radius of the earth based on 1/ a low observation point 2/ an estimate of the hidden height of a distant object (this can have various degrees of accuracy) and produces a result that gives an approximation of the REFRACTED value for the radius rather than the geometric radius. One would expect refraction would be a little higher than normal for a very low observer point compared to a mountain. Multiplying it by 6/7 gets you close to the true R in cases of standard refraction, and the original calculated value compared to the true radius lets you estimate the amount of refraction without the need to measure all the temp and humidity data between you and the target (a common demand by science deniers). You can measure the refraction directly and compare it to data from different days. Bob Ps Thanks to BlueMarbleScience for reviewing the video and suggesting the name Thanks to Judy for reviewing the math and technical aspects of the video.$

Robert F. Kennedy (1) | Pandemic Profiteers

Ty and Charlene Bollinger | Pandemic Profiteers

Denying the Shape of the Earth | Gas Pressure

The Black Swan with Brandon Toy | Part 2

Where did you get R???? RIGHT HERE @ResearchFlatMoon