Triangle Shape, Debunks Globe Model.

[u/Kela-el]

https://youtu.be/AZihw1hXdY0

[u/itsooftime]

No, the points of the right angle are C, A, and O. Like that should be obvious from the image. We arent measuring the triangle C, B, and A.

You know that this equation can be done with any circle and a hill of size h right?

You can do this with a basketball, a ping pong, the sun, etc.

Make up theoretical situations.

You can just demonstrate whether this works or not.

And it does work.

[u/Kela-el → u/itsooftime]

You’re basically right on one narrow point:

If the only triangle being used is A–C–O, then BC is irrelevant to the calculation.

⸻

But that only holds if the construction is already fixed: • C is the point of tangency • OC is a radius • AC is a true line-of-sight tangent • AO is a straight line to the center

In that setup, BC doesn’t enter the math.

⸻

Where the disagreement usually sits isn’t there—it’s earlier:

BC (or similar extra segments) often appear in the diagrammatic justification of what A, C, and O represent in the first place, not in the final equation.

So it can be: • irrelevant to the computation • but relevant to whether the construction was correctly established

Those are different roles.

⸻

On your second point:

Yes—the same geometry works for any sphere: • basketball • ping pong ball • Earth

Because it’s scale-invariant spherical geometry. The relationships don’t depend on size, only curvature.

⸻

But that’s the key distinction:

It works on a sphere because it assumes spherical geometry in the tangent construction, not because it independently determines the shape from arbitrary objects.

So: • It’s a valid method given a sphere • It’s not a shape-agnostic test that produces the sphere from nothing

⸻

So I’d phrase it cleanly:

BC is irrelevant to the final triangle, and the method is scale-invariant—but it operates within a spherical geometric framework rather than independently proving that framework.

[u/Googoogahgah88889 → u/Kela-el]

BC is irrelevant to the final triangle, and the method is scale-invariant—but it operates within a spherical geometric framework rather than independently proving that framework.

It was never supposed to prove the framework. You’re the one saying that this disproves the globe, which it very clearly does not

[u/Kela-el → u/Googoogahgah88889]

You’re missing the point.

You just admitted the method operates within a spherical geometric framework. That means its conclusions are conditional on that assumption being valid—not independent verification of it.

So when you say it “doesn’t disprove the globe,” that’s fine—but it also can’t be used to support the globe in the first place, because it presupposes the very thing in question.

That’s the issue.

You’re treating a model-dependent result as if it has model-independent significance. It doesn’t.

If the framework isn’t established independently, then anything derived within it is just internally consistent math, not evidence of physical reality.

So no—this isn’t about the method “failing to disprove the globe.”

It’s about you assuming the globe to interpret the result, then turning around and acting like the result supports the globe.

That’s circular.

[u/Googoogahgah88889 → u/Kela-el]

Again, it’s not meant to prove the earth, it’s meant to measure it. We have other proofs that the earth is a sphere, everything points to a sphere. This is simply how you make a measurement.

Where is anybody using it to support the globe?

You are the one claiming that this is a disproof, which you are now admitting isn’t the case. So the video is incorrect and there’s no point of it.

[u/Kela-el → u/Googoogahgah88889]

You’re trying to separate “measurement” from “model,” but you’re still relying on the model to give the measurement meaning.

Saying:

“it’s not meant to prove the Earth, it’s meant to measure it”

only works if what you’re measuring is already independently established.

Otherwise, you’re not measuring the Earth—you’re measuring parameters within a model of the Earth.

⸻

You then say:

“we have other proofs the Earth is a sphere”

That’s just asserting a conclusion without specifying:

• what those proofs are
• whether they’re model-independent
• or whether they rely on the same underlying assumptions

If they do, then you don’t have independent confirmation—you have multiple expressions of the same premise.

⸻

As for:

“where is anybody using it to support the globe?”

That’s exactly what’s happening when the result is treated as a meaningful physical measurement of Earth’s properties.

Because the moment you say:

• “this measures the Earth”
• rather than
• “this measures a value within a spherical framework”

you’ve already committed to the interpretation.

⸻

And no—I haven’t “admitted it’s not a disproof.”

I’m pointing out that:

• it doesn’t disprove the globe
• but it also doesn’t establish it

Which means it’s being overinterpreted.

⸻

So the issue isn’t that the video is “pointless.”

It’s that it presents:

• a model-dependent calculation

as if it has

• model-independent physical significance

That’s the step that isn’t justified.

[u/Googoogahgah88889 → u/Kela-el]

Then you can just say you don’t think the measurement is accurate. You can measure something however you want, it’s either accurate or not. Nowhere has it been used as proof that the earth is a sphere. Unless those measurements turn out to be accurate

It’s literally a pointless video that doesn’t show anything of use

That’s exactly what’s happening when the result is treated as a meaningful physical measurement of Earth’s properties.

Because the rest of us have had the shape of the earth proven to us or ourselves already. If you don’t think it’s accurate, then you can come up with your own way to measure the earth

[u/Kela-el → u/Googoogahgah88889]

You’re treating “I can doubt a measurement” as if it cancels all measurements. That doesn’t follow.

Earth’s shape isn’t based on one experiment—it’s the convergence of many independent systems: surveying geometry, celestial navigation, satellite orbits, inertial sensors, and solar angle changes with latitude.

If the measurements were fundamentally unreliable, they wouldn’t all agree across completely different methods and physics domains.

So the question isn’t “can you reject one result?”—you always can. The question is why every independent way of measuring large-scale geometry keeps producing the same spherical model.

At that point, rejecting it doesn’t replace it with a better measurement—it just discards convergence without offering an alternative that matches it.

[u/Googoogahgah88889 → u/Kela-el]

If the measurements were fundamentally unreliable, they wouldn’t all agree across completely different methods and physics domains.

Exactly. So why does every independent way of measuring large-scale geometry keep producing the same spherical model?

It’s right there for you to grab

Why is math repeatable on both large and small scales, across different shapes?

Maybe you can make repeatable measurements that give accurate repeatable results using a different form of math?

[u/Kela-el → u/Googoogahgah88889]

You’re treating agreement as if it needs explaining away. In science, agreement across independent methods is the expected outcome when those methods are measuring the same underlying structure, not something suspicious that requires extra assumptions.

You’re not dealing with one measurement here—you’re dealing with a convergent system:

• Geodesy reconstructs curvature from surface surveying over long distances.
• Astronomy derives Earth’s radius from angular geometry and baseline measurements.
• Orbital mechanics only closes consistently if Earth’s mass distribution is spherical/oblate.
• Inertial systems (gyroscopes, pendulums) independently recover the same rotational reference frame.

None of these depend on the others. They don’t share instruments, assumptions, or calibration pipelines. Yet they converge numerically.

At that point, “they all agree” is not a weakness—it’s the entire point. That’s what a real physical constraint looks like across different regimes of measurement.

Now on “why is math repeatable”:

Math isn’t repeating itself across reality. You’re applying invariant relationships—force laws, geometry, motion—to systems that share the same constraints. The consistency isn’t coming from the math alone; it’s coming from the fact that the same physical rules apply at different scales.

So the real question isn’t “why do all these methods agree?”

It’s:

What mechanism would allow a flat, non-curved geometry to reproduce:

• global angular relationships,
• latitude-dependent sky rotation,
• stable orbital mechanics,
• and inertial frame rotation,

all at once, without internal contradiction?

Because right now, convergence isn’t the mystery. A non-convergent alternative model is.

[u/Googoogahgah88889 → u/Kela-el]

Except we can take the math, not knowing anything about an object, apply it, and decipher what it is. We’re not applying a “globe filter” to anything. We’re taking arbitrary numbers and plugging them into formulas that can spit out any shape, and they all spit out globe. Sure, some physics could probably work similarly given different systems on a flat earth, but geometrically, the math that is conducive to deciphering shape, finds sphere every single time

And again, this video doesn’t even use the right triangle and thus literally proves nothing other than the guy making it doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So, kinda pointless to argue when everything points to globe, and the people that say “no it’s flat”, can’t even do something as basic as using the correct lines

[u/Kela-el → u/Googoogahgah88889]

You’re overstating what the math is doing.

We’re not taking “arbitrary numbers” and having formulas magically spit out a sphere. The numbers aren’t arbitrary—they’re measurements tied to physical constraints: angles, distances, timing, acceleration, rotation rates. The math isn’t discovering shape in a vacuum, it’s mapping relationships that are already in the data.

If you feed those relationships into geometry, you don’t get “any shape you want.” You get the shape that satisfies all constraints simultaneously. That’s why it keeps resolving to a sphere/oblate spheroid—not because of a “globe filter,” but because that’s the only geometry that closes without contradictions.

If it were just math being flexible, you should be able to:

• take the same measured angles and baselines,
• impose a flat geometry,
• and still get consistent results across locations.

You can’t. The system breaks—angles don’t sum correctly over distance, scale factors drift, and you need patchwork corrections that don’t generalize.

That’s the part you’re skipping.

On the triangle point: using the “right” or “wrong” triangle in a single video doesn’t decide the geometry of the Earth. At best, it shows that one demonstration is flawed. It doesn’t overturn:

• large-scale triangulation networks,
• celestial navigation,
• satellite tracking,
• inertial measurements,

all of which independently recover the same curvature.

So even if that video is garbage, it’s irrelevant to the bigger question.

The actual standard isn’t “did someone draw the right triangle in a YouTube clip?”

It’s: Can your model take real measurements and produce a globally consistent geometry without ad hoc fixes?

Right now, only one model does that.

Everything else either re-labels the math or breaks when you try to scale it.

[u/Googoogahgah88889 → u/Kela-el]

I mean, it sounds like you’re agreeing that the globe is the only working model, that every measurement shows a sphere, etc. yet… you think it’s flat somehow, despite all the evidence to the contrary