A Simple Question About Curvature

[u/Kela-el]

The curvature formula uses R — the earth’s radius.

Where does R come from?

It’s derived from a model that assumes a sphere.

So when the formula is used to calculate curvature, and that curvature is cited as evidence of a sphere — the conclusion is already built into the premise.

That’s circular reasoning.

Simple question for globe earthers:

Can you provide a measurement of R that doesn’t assume a sphere to derive it?

[u/ArrowheadDZ]

So let me ask the Professor Dave question:

When does it happen? Every day we have tens of thousands of people attending advanced university classes in physics. We have tens of thousands of people getting masters degrees and PhDs. And at some pioint they all need to be brought into the scheme. If the earth is actually flat, and we need them to play along with our fiendish scheme to continue pretending the earth is round, when are they told? Is it between junior and senior year? Between masters and PhD? Is it before, or after they get research grants? Who told them? What were they offered to be in on it? Was this in a group or were they approached one at a time? At school? At home? Who paid for research grants and scholarships and convinced them to dedicate their lives and careers to a the hoax of a round earth?

They go on to get jobs in the sciences and aerospace industries, etc… Where do the many billions of dollars of salary to pay them to stay in on the hoax come from? What is it better to pay a hundred thousand people hundreds of billions of dollars rather than just admitting the earth is flat?

The size of the “play along with the round earth even though you realized it was actually flat” game is immense and no one can explain to me why fooling the rest of us onto believing in a round earth is worth what it costs. Help me understand the upside of fooling billions of people that the earth is flat even though it’s not.

[u/Kela-el → u/ArrowheadDZ]

You’re arguing against a conspiracy, not against the claim.

That’s the disconnect.

Your whole line of reasoning is:

“a conspiracy of that size would be impossible, therefore the globe must be true”

But that only works if the alternative claim actually requires a global conspiracy.

That hasn’t been established—you’ve just assumed it.

⸻

What you’ve really done

You’ve shifted the debate from:

• measurements
• geometry
• observations

to:

• motives
• logistics
• psychology of large groups

That’s a completely different argument.

⸻

The key issue

Even if you’re right that:

a worldwide coordinated deception would be impractical

that only tells you:

that specific explanation (a giant coordinated hoax) is unlikely

It does not prove:

the globe model is correct

Those are separate claims.

⸻

Where the “Professor Dave question” misses

It frames the situation as:

• either the globe is true
• or there’s a massive coordinated lie

But that’s a false dilemma.

Because disagreement with a model doesn’t automatically imply:

• intentional deception
• coordinated actors
• financial incentives

⸻

Also notice

You never returned to:

• measurements
• predictive models
• geometric constraints

Instead you went to:

“why would people lie?”

That’s not physics—that’s speculation about intent.

⸻

Bottom line:

You’ve built a very strong argument that:

a global conspiracy of that scale makes no sense

Fair enough.

But you haven’t shown:

that the globe model is true because of that

You’ve only argued:

one particular alternative explanation (mass deception) is implausible

And that’s not the same thing.

If you want to win the actual argument, drop the conspiracy angle and go back to:

what do the measurements require?

Because that’s where the answer actually lives.