meaning of g20
intro: now in the news we hear about Trump at the G20 meeting. who does g20 represent? what about g3-10?
the g is simply "group" meaning gathering representatives of countries for economic purposes. these groups are not the "same lists" with additions except g20 which is the seven of g7 with 13 more representatives.
g20 includes one representative for the european-union with the g7 (as below): britin, canada, france, germany, italy, japan, and u.s. (they meet called g7 as below) plus 12 more countries. the 12 are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey. note: both germany already represented and others lacking their own representative.
in abc order Group Twenty (representing the European Union and 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea (south), Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States. Some of these are members in G-7).
G1 or 2? as a group there must not be g1 alone. if Trump meets chinese leader that is like G2 but hardly a "group" either.
g3 trade group representing: Columbia, Mexico, Venezuela.
g4 Group Four (4 countries: Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan which want to join the United Nations Security Council.).
g5 five economic powers: France, Germany, Japan, UK, US.
g6, year 1975 represented 6 countries that are economic powers (not the 6 strongest economies)
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US.
g7 year 1976 added canada to that group so bcfgiju
g8 added russia in 1997 until year 2013 they rejected russia claiming ukraine situation was bad so ignore its needs so g8 change to g7 as above. russia is only included in g20 as above.
g9 from 1965-1968 for cooperation during the cold war. It represented: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Sweden, Yugoslavia.
g10 The Group of Ten represents the U.S. and ten industrialized countries (Belgium, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland) for trade cooperation.
please fix on page
http://econmentor.com/index-hs/g---h/g3-g5-g8-countries/text/1304.html
g5 not the leaders because most behind china, not listed. so please delete "leading" also
g8 not "biggest" and since 2013 they rejected russia so please fix "G8 consisted of eight powerful economies." and mention the change to become G-7.
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Sunday, June 23, 2019
solving the cube part one
solving the cube part one
note: the following method DIFFERS in several ways from the guidance at the RUBIK website. mine has several advantages for memory and self-checking.
first do not buy a rubik s cube. if you already have one or have a companion with an old one then this guide is for you but do not buy because now that i understand the method it is TRULY empty and not skill. far from genius to know the method. the rumor of genius was just a MARKETING scheme because the only genius would be to generate the method of EMPTY calculatins. even the generator is an expert at blank papers. anway most of the solvers were taught the empty calculations and only remember the steps. that is not genius nor skill.
as a child people boasted that solving it was a "genius" and for me the cube was a MYSTERY i was misled by pranksters to "try to solve one side" which of course took a very long time because the possibilities seem endless. one day after almost a full hour i "succeeded" meaning i had returned "one face" to the same color. after they had mixed the colors. i had no idea at the time that even that "success" of one side same color was not "returning the parts to their ONE and only position."
the key to solving the cube is ORIENTATION and relative position.
i recommend choosing reference points specific-ly green and blue as the oppposing "poles based on the familiar globe of our planet." the north pole should be consstently blue and then you know that the opposing side must be green like the south pole.
how? the preparation is in four steps. after identifying the center-squares of the blue and green sides which are opposing be careful to hold the cube such that ALWAYS blue-center is north as you look down... this is critical for not losing orientation, and not being trapped in "loops". tip imagine the blue center is the water of arctic for navigation. search among the scrambled colors for those green squares that are not corners with two edges. just one edge. first turn that face so the green edj moves adjacent meaning by the blue center. then ROTATE the blue-center-face over each green edj and slide the green edj north
one at a time such an edge moves beside the blue center and in four steps surround the center blue square with 4 edges colored green. this may seem difficult for a beginner yet trust me it truly is simple enough to learn by trial and error and a great way for the beginner to familiarize with the consequence of the faces slide. ignore the corner color because they are random at this point.
once the blue center has four green edges you have completed the four steps of preparation.
solve:
rotate the face with the blue center so one [i recommend the right side green for right-hand dominant people] whichever color it is will slide beside the matching color at the center of a face for example green could have one green face and one of yellow or orange. rotate the north face meaning as above blue center, so that this green-orange moves beside the orange center square... or for other colors except green... of its same color. that will indicate it is in its ONE and only position. then move the row south to the unseen green edge and check. repeat so the 4 greens surround the green center. the memory hint is like the land called antarctica if grass grew there.
the rest of solving is simply gathering the corners to the side in steps that repeat scrambling and returning the side to correct position. almost mindlessly repetitive only thinking to recall the steps. far from genius to solve and almost mindlessly repetitive. with over 60 percent repetition.
ultimately forced into a stupid goal. so suffice solving green to the only one correct solution based on the center square colors.
one side same color is not "truly solved" unless the adjacent edj matches the center squares.
now solve south green as follows, to be continued.... even at this point the green is 5/9 complete and 50% finished.
corners in part two.
note: the following method DIFFERS in several ways from the guidance at the RUBIK website. mine has several advantages for memory and self-checking.
first do not buy a rubik s cube. if you already have one or have a companion with an old one then this guide is for you but do not buy because now that i understand the method it is TRULY empty and not skill. far from genius to know the method. the rumor of genius was just a MARKETING scheme because the only genius would be to generate the method of EMPTY calculatins. even the generator is an expert at blank papers. anway most of the solvers were taught the empty calculations and only remember the steps. that is not genius nor skill.
as a child people boasted that solving it was a "genius" and for me the cube was a MYSTERY i was misled by pranksters to "try to solve one side" which of course took a very long time because the possibilities seem endless. one day after almost a full hour i "succeeded" meaning i had returned "one face" to the same color. after they had mixed the colors. i had no idea at the time that even that "success" of one side same color was not "returning the parts to their ONE and only position."
the key to solving the cube is ORIENTATION and relative position.
i recommend choosing reference points specific-ly green and blue as the oppposing "poles based on the familiar globe of our planet." the north pole should be consstently blue and then you know that the opposing side must be green like the south pole.
how? the preparation is in four steps. after identifying the center-squares of the blue and green sides which are opposing be careful to hold the cube such that ALWAYS blue-center is north as you look down... this is critical for not losing orientation, and not being trapped in "loops". tip imagine the blue center is the water of arctic for navigation. search among the scrambled colors for those green squares that are not corners with two edges. just one edge. first turn that face so the green edj moves adjacent meaning by the blue center. then ROTATE the blue-center-face over each green edj and slide the green edj north
one at a time such an edge moves beside the blue center and in four steps surround the center blue square with 4 edges colored green. this may seem difficult for a beginner yet trust me it truly is simple enough to learn by trial and error and a great way for the beginner to familiarize with the consequence of the faces slide. ignore the corner color because they are random at this point.
once the blue center has four green edges you have completed the four steps of preparation.
solve:
rotate the face with the blue center so one [i recommend the right side green for right-hand dominant people] whichever color it is will slide beside the matching color at the center of a face for example green could have one green face and one of yellow or orange. rotate the north face meaning as above blue center, so that this green-orange moves beside the orange center square... or for other colors except green... of its same color. that will indicate it is in its ONE and only position. then move the row south to the unseen green edge and check. repeat so the 4 greens surround the green center. the memory hint is like the land called antarctica if grass grew there.
the rest of solving is simply gathering the corners to the side in steps that repeat scrambling and returning the side to correct position. almost mindlessly repetitive only thinking to recall the steps. far from genius to solve and almost mindlessly repetitive. with over 60 percent repetition.
ultimately forced into a stupid goal. so suffice solving green to the only one correct solution based on the center square colors.
one side same color is not "truly solved" unless the adjacent edj matches the center squares.
now solve south green as follows, to be continued.... even at this point the green is 5/9 complete and 50% finished.
corners in part two.
the history of peter pan
Before he was born a baby, Pan was a bird.
Peter Pan's birthday is June 13th [not in fandom yet]
The author named Barrie wrote books about peter pan. peter celebrates his birthday on date June 13. when he reached age 12 he decided never to grow up so magic-ly stays age 12.
altho the story of the author is boring still pans story is exciting.
we love pan but he first appeared as one among many unrelated stories in the book "Little White Bird", James Barrie, 1902.
some stories are about "activities in London of 1902, and others are imaginary stories in Kensington Gardens [a real garden where king william built a palace] and elsewhere. This book also includes the very first appearance of Peter Pan." that book peter pan was mean to kids so we ignore that unhappy part. those stories were later republished a couple years after the theatre version of pan. In December 1904, Peter Pan; or, The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up the theater showed a story about pan which later became the 1911 book see below. in year 1904 in a theatre actors showed a story about pan. this was developed into a book "Peter and Wendy", Barrie, 1911.
so in time order:
1902 among many stories are stories of pan.
1904 theater pan.
1906 after theater republished those stories of pan see below
1911 book see below
details: in year 1906, Barrie also published a separate book with those stories about pan "...(From 'The Little White Bird')...". its name Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens, later repeatedly republished] the stories of beloved pan tell that "Peter Pan was a baby, living secretly in London, with the birds and fairies" fairies took him away and when he returned he saw his parents had a different child so he lived separately. he grew until age 12 he refused to "grow up" and magic-ly stopped. actualy before peter was born he had been a bird.
fascinating choice of days "escaped from being human when he was seven days old; he escaped by the window and flew back to the Kensington Gardens etc."
in 1911 Barrie published a novel, known as Peter and Wendy or just Peter Pan
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Theatre/PeterPan1904
Barrie adapted the plot of the play, and continued to revise the story, until in 1928, he published a definitive version.
Peter Pan's birthday is June 13th [not in fandom yet]
The author named Barrie wrote books about peter pan. peter celebrates his birthday on date June 13. when he reached age 12 he decided never to grow up so magic-ly stays age 12.
altho the story of the author is boring still pans story is exciting.
we love pan but he first appeared as one among many unrelated stories in the book "Little White Bird", James Barrie, 1902.
some stories are about "activities in London of 1902, and others are imaginary stories in Kensington Gardens [a real garden where king william built a palace] and elsewhere. This book also includes the very first appearance of Peter Pan." that book peter pan was mean to kids so we ignore that unhappy part. those stories were later republished a couple years after the theatre version of pan. In December 1904, Peter Pan; or, The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up the theater showed a story about pan which later became the 1911 book see below. in year 1904 in a theatre actors showed a story about pan. this was developed into a book "Peter and Wendy", Barrie, 1911.
so in time order:
1902 among many stories are stories of pan.
1904 theater pan.
1906 after theater republished those stories of pan see below
1911 book see below
details: in year 1906, Barrie also published a separate book with those stories about pan "...(From 'The Little White Bird')...". its name Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens, later repeatedly republished] the stories of beloved pan tell that "Peter Pan was a baby, living secretly in London, with the birds and fairies" fairies took him away and when he returned he saw his parents had a different child so he lived separately. he grew until age 12 he refused to "grow up" and magic-ly stopped. actualy before peter was born he had been a bird.
fascinating choice of days "escaped from being human when he was seven days old; he escaped by the window and flew back to the Kensington Gardens etc."
in 1911 Barrie published a novel, known as Peter and Wendy or just Peter Pan
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Theatre/PeterPan1904
Barrie adapted the plot of the play, and continued to revise the story, until in 1928, he published a definitive version.
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Monday, June 17, 2019
illegal immigration
does cyprus deserve "praise"? or even gratitude for the terrible treatment of the jews trying to get to their homeland before 1948?
if trump would put the refugees in an island camp like Cyprus, then people would demand free them not in a cage but the cyprus expect praise from israeli tourists for "accepting them". that is so far from truth. firstly caging the refugees is very bad every other country releases the refugees cannot be in prison longer than a day. but the cyprus caged the jews when the brits stopped their ship that is terrible treatment. jesus Christ !
but the fact the cyrus "accepted them" is also not accurate bkuz cyprus was not independemt until long after 1948. so who made the decision? the same brits who blocked entrance into then british occupied palestine now named israel. those same also controlled ctyprus unil many years after 1948 and moved the jews to the island cages.
and a third poiint last but not least the CAUSE of the brits for breking the legal commitment of balfour declaration that recognized the jewish homeland was the violence of the arba so the cyprus who say "we accepted you" when they were not yet independent... do they expect gratitude for not RIOTING the same as volent arabs... they deserve no praise for not being violent all that remains is the acceptance but the cyprus people did not decide to welcome they were not yet independent. and instead of gratitude from jews as some jew tourists were fooled and told me... the real issue is the long term caging which we know is not valid in america nor israel because of personal freedom which brits and cyprus denied those jew-immigrants. only illegal immigrants cannot be caged but jew is different... and should be grateful?? that cyprans did not riot same as the violent arabs...
if trump would put the refugees in an island camp like Cyprus, then people would demand free them not in a cage but the cyprus expect praise from israeli tourists for "accepting them". that is so far from truth. firstly caging the refugees is very bad every other country releases the refugees cannot be in prison longer than a day. but the cyprus caged the jews when the brits stopped their ship that is terrible treatment. jesus Christ !
but the fact the cyrus "accepted them" is also not accurate bkuz cyprus was not independemt until long after 1948. so who made the decision? the same brits who blocked entrance into then british occupied palestine now named israel. those same also controlled ctyprus unil many years after 1948 and moved the jews to the island cages.
and a third poiint last but not least the CAUSE of the brits for breking the legal commitment of balfour declaration that recognized the jewish homeland was the violence of the arba so the cyprus who say "we accepted you" when they were not yet independent... do they expect gratitude for not RIOTING the same as volent arabs... they deserve no praise for not being violent all that remains is the acceptance but the cyprus people did not decide to welcome they were not yet independent. and instead of gratitude from jews as some jew tourists were fooled and told me... the real issue is the long term caging which we know is not valid in america nor israel because of personal freedom which brits and cyprus denied those jew-immigrants. only illegal immigrants cannot be caged but jew is different... and should be grateful?? that cyprans did not riot same as the violent arabs...
Friday, June 14, 2019
so "land and sea"? or many seas?
we were born into a world where books and schools teach us the numerous names which are traditional names of "continents", "oceans" and "seas". is that good? the obvious flaw in that system is that those names fail to accurately describe the PHYSICAL FEATURES of the planet.
the REALITY of the sea is that the water truly connects and continues. not more than one ocean and certainly not many seas insted at most there are many gulfs but "sea" see below. the true description is the sea is one sea. even replacing the name "atlantic ocean" with amazon is only a partial improvement. insted we can and should describe the physical features of the planet so the names describe those realities and that means UPDATING the sytem in away that removes many of those flaws.
i emphasize that the sea is so vast that even saying a ship or island is in the north of ocean does not tell me the location where. even a smaller sea with a name for example "my ship is in DANGER in "bering" sea" does that tell the other ships my location? that water is so vast millions of square kilometers that the name does not identify the location anyway and even worse is the severity of namaing shared water by any country name we must remove-urgently the names of countries from any sea or ocean and replace it with names that describe the reality of the planet. i dare not even repeat the names that need fixing.
althoe it s tempting to simplify the name of the long river for the same name as the ocean i must admit that is not objective reality because the surface of the planet is truly covered with water that CONNECTS and CONTINUES and truly surrounds each and every exposed land wether as vast and broad as the ural continent or a small islet.
the only accurate manner to describe a division of sea which is truly one sea considering the water continues is based on the largest continent the island truly surrounded by water where the long mountain called ural mountain and therefore url continent. then the one sea can be subdivided into north ural sea with no country name and east ural sea which truly does conect to the south ural sea and west ural sea so one sea.
when we consider the DEEPEST point in the sea there is only one deepest point because the water continues connects except for true gulfs with narrow connectioins so the subdivision is not truly the deepest point for example in the water north of ural there are deep points yet the deepest point in that water is not significant considering that the same sea extends and continues east of ural where the deepest point is 9 kilometers hence anything less deep is obviously "many points less deep" in one sea. so this not nly simplifies by removing the obvious but more accurately describes the physical feature because one sea must have only one deepest point and the water on any side of the ural continent is connected as one sea which defines the continent as an island.
the most detail that is reasonable is categorizing the islands by size as in previous post but the sea is water that connects and surrounds every island wether vast or small and relative to the sea which is truly one sea even ural continent is simply an island not only because it is truly surrounded by water and hence we can and must describe the physical feature of the planet but also it is not vast in relation to the area of the water called sea.
as above the traditional subdivisions will not aid any ship in danger for example bering sea despite the fact that it lacks the flaw of a bad name for any country it is still not helpful and we must update and improve the system insted of stubbornly preserving names that not only do not describe the physical features but are often bad and evil by attaching to shared water a country name which does not assist a ship in danger anyway. anyway we must use the lines of latitude and truly without electronic satellites we did and will fail in helping a ship in danger so the names are just only inaccurate without benefit and we can and should remove any bad name and simplify names in a manner that describes the physical reality of the planet so the most possible names would be at most subdivide based on the largest continent as above.
so simply there is one sea because the water truly connects. not more than one ocean nor sea and certainly not any name of country for shared water.
as above relative to the one deepest point the fact that many other points in the one sea are less deep becomes blatantly obvious and does not describe the planet for example to say a certain place in the sea which is not separated in the manner of a true gulf has a "less deep point" than 9000 meters is obvious because there are many innumerable less deep points or trenches in the one sea.we would need the system of the sphere called latitude even if we kept the bad country names and inaccurate non-evil names such as bering sea simply wrong because it is not a separate sea and instead truly one sea of connected water surround the relatively smaller island wither it is as vast as ural or smaller.
obviously the reffort of learning the area of any subdivision is inaccurate because the water truly continues and connects so no point in saying my sea is more area in square kilometers than your sea or gulf.
imagine mexico boasting our "gulf" is bigger than china sea. those waters are not only shared and must be shared but the water is not separated that is why the word "sea" was traditionally used for one sea and the fact that the bible got this detail wrong is no excuse to preserve any inaccuracy fix those many traditions wether in a book that does not describe the reality of the planet as well as the traditional names of water and land "land and sea"
we can and should fix the details and remove the many names because they do not accurately describe the reality of the physical features of the planet.
which is better to name the water east of amazon river east amazon ocean and the water west of the amazon continent west amazon? yet the amazon continent is truly not the most significant continent. the ural continent is a larger island than amazon continent even without the nile region. for example 50 million square kilometers is far more than 42 msk.
therefore the description of the planet must be based on the reality that ural continent is larger and the water surrounds the ural continent to north and south of it as well as east and west of it and each of those areas truly connects with the other in ones sea absurd to pretend the area in kilometers or deep points arre worth emphasizing in one connected sea.
so in conclusion tthe replacement to improbe the traditional system is to focus on describing the physical feateurs fpr that reason and removing the numerous names and details [wether less area or less deep than deepest] which are obvious as above and do not aid a ship in danger anyway and do not accurately describe the planet anyway.
instead based on the largest i sland we can and should say the surface is "land and sea". one sea surrounds the surface of the planet and surrounds the two largest islands, because the water not only connects but only true gulfs have narrow knecks to justify a separate name which as above must not be a country name. in terms of islands see previous post that even antarctica is significantly smaller to be in the same island category of the "continents" and educaters can and should improve the tradition by using these improvemets because not only does it simplify the details but more importantly it more accurately describes the physical featues of the planet as decided by the reality of those physical features.
isnt truth more important between the options? certainly yes so the reality of the physical description must guide us to update and improve the description from the flawed data currently taught to more accurate descriptions.
the REALITY of the sea is that the water truly connects and continues. not more than one ocean and certainly not many seas insted at most there are many gulfs but "sea" see below. the true description is the sea is one sea. even replacing the name "atlantic ocean" with amazon is only a partial improvement. insted we can and should describe the physical features of the planet so the names describe those realities and that means UPDATING the sytem in away that removes many of those flaws.
i emphasize that the sea is so vast that even saying a ship or island is in the north of ocean does not tell me the location where. even a smaller sea with a name for example "my ship is in DANGER in "bering" sea" does that tell the other ships my location? that water is so vast millions of square kilometers that the name does not identify the location anyway and even worse is the severity of namaing shared water by any country name we must remove-urgently the names of countries from any sea or ocean and replace it with names that describe the reality of the planet. i dare not even repeat the names that need fixing.
althoe it s tempting to simplify the name of the long river for the same name as the ocean i must admit that is not objective reality because the surface of the planet is truly covered with water that CONNECTS and CONTINUES and truly surrounds each and every exposed land wether as vast and broad as the ural continent or a small islet.
the only accurate manner to describe a division of sea which is truly one sea considering the water continues is based on the largest continent the island truly surrounded by water where the long mountain called ural mountain and therefore url continent. then the one sea can be subdivided into north ural sea with no country name and east ural sea which truly does conect to the south ural sea and west ural sea so one sea.
when we consider the DEEPEST point in the sea there is only one deepest point because the water continues connects except for true gulfs with narrow connectioins so the subdivision is not truly the deepest point for example in the water north of ural there are deep points yet the deepest point in that water is not significant considering that the same sea extends and continues east of ural where the deepest point is 9 kilometers hence anything less deep is obviously "many points less deep" in one sea. so this not nly simplifies by removing the obvious but more accurately describes the physical feature because one sea must have only one deepest point and the water on any side of the ural continent is connected as one sea which defines the continent as an island.
the most detail that is reasonable is categorizing the islands by size as in previous post but the sea is water that connects and surrounds every island wether vast or small and relative to the sea which is truly one sea even ural continent is simply an island not only because it is truly surrounded by water and hence we can and must describe the physical feature of the planet but also it is not vast in relation to the area of the water called sea.
as above the traditional subdivisions will not aid any ship in danger for example bering sea despite the fact that it lacks the flaw of a bad name for any country it is still not helpful and we must update and improve the system insted of stubbornly preserving names that not only do not describe the physical features but are often bad and evil by attaching to shared water a country name which does not assist a ship in danger anyway. anyway we must use the lines of latitude and truly without electronic satellites we did and will fail in helping a ship in danger so the names are just only inaccurate without benefit and we can and should remove any bad name and simplify names in a manner that describes the physical reality of the planet so the most possible names would be at most subdivide based on the largest continent as above.
so simply there is one sea because the water truly connects. not more than one ocean nor sea and certainly not any name of country for shared water.
as above relative to the one deepest point the fact that many other points in the one sea are less deep becomes blatantly obvious and does not describe the planet for example to say a certain place in the sea which is not separated in the manner of a true gulf has a "less deep point" than 9000 meters is obvious because there are many innumerable less deep points or trenches in the one sea.we would need the system of the sphere called latitude even if we kept the bad country names and inaccurate non-evil names such as bering sea simply wrong because it is not a separate sea and instead truly one sea of connected water surround the relatively smaller island wither it is as vast as ural or smaller.
obviously the reffort of learning the area of any subdivision is inaccurate because the water truly continues and connects so no point in saying my sea is more area in square kilometers than your sea or gulf.
imagine mexico boasting our "gulf" is bigger than china sea. those waters are not only shared and must be shared but the water is not separated that is why the word "sea" was traditionally used for one sea and the fact that the bible got this detail wrong is no excuse to preserve any inaccuracy fix those many traditions wether in a book that does not describe the reality of the planet as well as the traditional names of water and land "land and sea"
we can and should fix the details and remove the many names because they do not accurately describe the reality of the physical features of the planet.
which is better to name the water east of amazon river east amazon ocean and the water west of the amazon continent west amazon? yet the amazon continent is truly not the most significant continent. the ural continent is a larger island than amazon continent even without the nile region. for example 50 million square kilometers is far more than 42 msk.
therefore the description of the planet must be based on the reality that ural continent is larger and the water surrounds the ural continent to north and south of it as well as east and west of it and each of those areas truly connects with the other in ones sea absurd to pretend the area in kilometers or deep points arre worth emphasizing in one connected sea.
so in conclusion tthe replacement to improbe the traditional system is to focus on describing the physical feateurs fpr that reason and removing the numerous names and details [wether less area or less deep than deepest] which are obvious as above and do not aid a ship in danger anyway and do not accurately describe the planet anyway.
instead based on the largest i sland we can and should say the surface is "land and sea". one sea surrounds the surface of the planet and surrounds the two largest islands, because the water not only connects but only true gulfs have narrow knecks to justify a separate name which as above must not be a country name. in terms of islands see previous post that even antarctica is significantly smaller to be in the same island category of the "continents" and educaters can and should improve the tradition by using these improvemets because not only does it simplify the details but more importantly it more accurately describes the physical featues of the planet as decided by the reality of those physical features.
isnt truth more important between the options? certainly yes so the reality of the physical description must guide us to update and improve the description from the flawed data currently taught to more accurate descriptions.
Thursday, June 13, 2019
cities grow as we build
conurbation megalopilos
cities that grew and built in the space between them until the built areas are near each other are called megalopilos
the process of connecting the cities is called conurbation
the largest "islands" on our planet
Because of the British desire to claim that they are "in control of a continent and sub-continent," they decided in a problematic way, and refutable that the border between name "island and continent" is the size of the island of Australia which served their boasting. This can be revealed in the examination of reality and the suspicious decision to invent an idea "subcontinent."
The error can be disproved by analyzing the largest islands, revealing that only because of the desire to boast and in conflict with the description of reality- jesus Christ !! so is there any island so large that its area is more than five hundred thousand square kilometers? Because there are five fingers and if that big may need separate category than island. To a super-isle. There are only a few islands at this size of half a million square km. Since it is surrounded by water it seems that it is isle, but so big, maybe not exactly an island and there are only a few islands that size.
The term "island" belongs to "land surrounded by water," and for that reason one book was forced to say in integrity on page 116 that the term for "a continent." althoe they mean Australia and refute the two places where the same book said greenland is the "largest isle" still the truth is that they did not specify Australia and did say the term includes any "continent" surrounded by water hence we must not distinguish because it includes a continent hence the Ural continent even though the British wanted to boast for themselves=the British, still truth is that the Ural continent in which the Ural Mountains, in reality is surrounded by water and therefore also a much larger island than Greenland or Australia. So it is not to be distinguished nor to "split hairs" in a manner that claims many "continents" nor accept the problematic system that was transmitted to us by boasters who twisted the data for the purpose of their boasting instead we must describe the reality even if the facts differ.
the term "isle" refers to the island of Ural. far from that, Australia and Greenland are definitely island and not continent. Like BAFIN not being a continent but an island.
logic requires to group proportionally to the isles of our planet. Since there are a few giant islands in the same frame as bafin 512,000, Madagascar Island 590,000, Borneo 737,000, New Guinea 771,900 "as opposed to Granland, which is more than twice the size of them, for that reason the boundary between categories is different because the amount of area is more than double that the 772,000 if times 2 only 1,544 thousand. Greenland must be another category that is far from the size of the "islets" less than 800 thousand square km area such as this group of great islands, according to reality, a separate framework. But not a continent. Relative to the reality of the group in the same framework. when we compare those islets none are double the smaller islet in group in contrast to Greenland, more than twice the size of these big ones, and therefore deserves a separate category.
Similarly, the Australian area is far from the amount of the southern island area [note that is accustomed to a bad name Antarctica is a bad name that only is based on the opposite of the Arctic which is itself bad bkuz not a continent and more worthy of reading the name of self on the essence itself that is southern and not a result of the other place that is also problematic because More than 13 million square miles. And since Australia's space is much less, the reason for this is far from continent and exposed to the attempt to distort to boast as a recall that in reality does not deserve the same frame but as a simple granaland these medium islands unlike the great islands surrounded by the Ural and Amazon water. The separation of Europe is also in the primitive and incorrect Greece that Asia is connected to and exposed to the British's grift in size analysis.
It's too much to prolong the fact that there are smaller islands than half a million Khmer, and some of them like a mountain surrounded by water and some coral called "atoll " But what is important is that the Ural island in reality is surrounded by water and as a "no continent/" is called an island and therefore is the largest island, and the island of Amazon, which also is surrounded by water. And in the same framework that there is no group where one island and these two are far from the extent of the southern island, it is far from the reality to separate Europe that is connected and the land continues in a connection as well as a river area that is in reality connected and even after the digging of a trench has no deep sea that separates as the river does not only separate shallow water that was artificially excavated. A thin on the slim neck as if separated because it is connected and the British word "continent" was allowed to continue continuo-Yu.
In light of all that is meant to distinguish three frameworks from reality.
Large Island frame: Ural, which includes both sides of the Ural Mountains and the Nile mountain region that is connected except for a shallow canal. And a large island of Amazon that is connected to the Mississippi region and cannot be separated because it is connected by a narrow neck.
And even the southern island is not big enough to be considered a large island in the framework of a large that is far from the half of the island growing Amazon 42 million in Kemer that includes a river region and the Mississippi as it recalls that the it is connected with a narrow neck as a recall and should not be separated only because it is rather narrow and better to acknowledge the reality that is surrounded by water, and for this reason, the southern island is far from half the area only 13 When it is cooked.
Medium Island Southern Island frame, because the only 13 million Khmer is far from the previous frame and clear Australia only 7.7 million Khmer and Greenland 2.2 million Khmer are relatively mediocre for the islands of the planet that are far from the size of the larger as recalling and the biggest island apart from those larger than half of the Greenland area and therefore deserves a massage A separate Martha as recalls C, B, M, B are the most growing among the ordinary islands which are almost countless. And two types that are listed.
The error can be disproved by analyzing the largest islands, revealing that only because of the desire to boast and in conflict with the description of reality- jesus Christ !! so is there any island so large that its area is more than five hundred thousand square kilometers? Because there are five fingers and if that big may need separate category than island. To a super-isle. There are only a few islands at this size of half a million square km. Since it is surrounded by water it seems that it is isle, but so big, maybe not exactly an island and there are only a few islands that size.
The term "island" belongs to "land surrounded by water," and for that reason one book was forced to say in integrity on page 116 that the term for "a continent." althoe they mean Australia and refute the two places where the same book said greenland is the "largest isle" still the truth is that they did not specify Australia and did say the term includes any "continent" surrounded by water hence we must not distinguish because it includes a continent hence the Ural continent even though the British wanted to boast for themselves=the British, still truth is that the Ural continent in which the Ural Mountains, in reality is surrounded by water and therefore also a much larger island than Greenland or Australia. So it is not to be distinguished nor to "split hairs" in a manner that claims many "continents" nor accept the problematic system that was transmitted to us by boasters who twisted the data for the purpose of their boasting instead we must describe the reality even if the facts differ.
the term "isle" refers to the island of Ural. far from that, Australia and Greenland are definitely island and not continent. Like BAFIN not being a continent but an island.
logic requires to group proportionally to the isles of our planet. Since there are a few giant islands in the same frame as bafin 512,000, Madagascar Island 590,000, Borneo 737,000, New Guinea 771,900 "as opposed to Granland, which is more than twice the size of them, for that reason the boundary between categories is different because the amount of area is more than double that the 772,000 if times 2 only 1,544 thousand. Greenland must be another category that is far from the size of the "islets" less than 800 thousand square km area such as this group of great islands, according to reality, a separate framework. But not a continent. Relative to the reality of the group in the same framework. when we compare those islets none are double the smaller islet in group in contrast to Greenland, more than twice the size of these big ones, and therefore deserves a separate category.
Similarly, the Australian area is far from the amount of the southern island area [note that is accustomed to a bad name Antarctica is a bad name that only is based on the opposite of the Arctic which is itself bad bkuz not a continent and more worthy of reading the name of self on the essence itself that is southern and not a result of the other place that is also problematic because More than 13 million square miles. And since Australia's space is much less, the reason for this is far from continent and exposed to the attempt to distort to boast as a recall that in reality does not deserve the same frame but as a simple granaland these medium islands unlike the great islands surrounded by the Ural and Amazon water. The separation of Europe is also in the primitive and incorrect Greece that Asia is connected to and exposed to the British's grift in size analysis.
It's too much to prolong the fact that there are smaller islands than half a million Khmer, and some of them like a mountain surrounded by water and some coral called "atoll " But what is important is that the Ural island in reality is surrounded by water and as a "no continent/" is called an island and therefore is the largest island, and the island of Amazon, which also is surrounded by water. And in the same framework that there is no group where one island and these two are far from the extent of the southern island, it is far from the reality to separate Europe that is connected and the land continues in a connection as well as a river area that is in reality connected and even after the digging of a trench has no deep sea that separates as the river does not only separate shallow water that was artificially excavated. A thin on the slim neck as if separated because it is connected and the British word "continent" was allowed to continue continuo-Yu.
In light of all that is meant to distinguish three frameworks from reality.
Large Island frame: Ural, which includes both sides of the Ural Mountains and the Nile mountain region that is connected except for a shallow canal. And a large island of Amazon that is connected to the Mississippi region and cannot be separated because it is connected by a narrow neck.
And even the southern island is not big enough to be considered a large island in the framework of a large that is far from the half of the island growing Amazon 42 million in Kemer that includes a river region and the Mississippi as it recalls that the it is connected with a narrow neck as a recall and should not be separated only because it is rather narrow and better to acknowledge the reality that is surrounded by water, and for this reason, the southern island is far from half the area only 13 When it is cooked.
Medium Island Southern Island frame, because the only 13 million Khmer is far from the previous frame and clear Australia only 7.7 million Khmer and Greenland 2.2 million Khmer are relatively mediocre for the islands of the planet that are far from the size of the larger as recalling and the biggest island apart from those larger than half of the Greenland area and therefore deserves a massage A separate Martha as recalls C, B, M, B are the most growing among the ordinary islands which are almost countless. And two types that are listed.
Friday, June 7, 2019
math refutes "fact" distance to sun
some claim length to sun 149,598 km average to sun yet refuted by angle so only for astronomical unit translation.
"The average distance to the moon is 382,500 kilometers." nasa. so recalculate and list options.
382.5=238,000m rounded but calculate with 237,700 miles.
greatest possible angle 89.85 too much angle [greater than known 89.8d], still must be less than 90.8m.m. so length not greater than 87.3mm based on angle.
other tests even less distance despite more than 89.8 angle:
89.81 angle 72m.m.
angle 89.82, 76, 89.83: 80, 89.84: 85
also first attempt not greater than 137.5mk
calculating with 384k to moon? find book was bad.
91mm is too much because that angle is 89.85 and know less 89.8 must be less than 89.84 as above 85m.m. 89.844: not more than 87.3m.m. far from claim 93mm and chk if 93mm angle? 89.89 greater so what did they round? 89.86 too much. or 91mm as above.
my point hard to think for yourself and yes the moon findings challenge the venus findings for the sun by halleys prediction.
"The average distance to the moon is 382,500 kilometers." nasa. so recalculate and list options.
382.5=238,000m rounded but calculate with 237,700 miles.
greatest possible angle 89.85 too much angle [greater than known 89.8d], still must be less than 90.8m.m. so length not greater than 87.3mm based on angle.
other tests even less distance despite more than 89.8 angle:
89.81 angle 72m.m.
angle 89.82, 76, 89.83: 80, 89.84: 85
also first attempt not greater than 137.5mk
calculating with 384k to moon? find book was bad.
91mm is too much because that angle is 89.85 and know less 89.8 must be less than 89.84 as above 85m.m. 89.844: not more than 87.3m.m. far from claim 93mm and chk if 93mm angle? 89.89 greater so what did they round? 89.86 too much. or 91mm as above.
my point hard to think for yourself and yes the moon findings challenge the venus findings for the sun by halleys prediction.
our planet description
Intro: see explanation in previous posts.
Title: OUR PLANET
Name: Earth
Area: 197 million square miles [based on estimated radius] (510 million square km.)
Sea area: 139.6 million square miles (362 million square km)
land area: 57 million square miles (148 million square km)
circumferences: mid between poles of spin 24,900 miles (40,000 km) so RADIUS there 3963 miles (6378k), around axis/poles of spin 24,800 miles (39,900 km) so radius there 3950 miles (6357k) c/pi
Land, in size order, giant islands [3]
Ural 33 million square miles MSM (85 million square km, MSK) and not including nile land
Ural: 21msm (54msk), Nile: 12msm (31msk)
Names from Greek [outdated except for school exams]: africa, asia, europe
Amazon, area 16msm (41msk).
names: north and south america
South island, 5.5msm (14msk)
name: antarctica
Medium Islands [2 between 5msm and 0.3msm]
Australia 3msm (7.7msk)
Greenland 0.8msm (2.2msk)
sea area [surface] 139.6 million square miles (362 million square km).
names: Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, Pacific
area as above because connected with wide connections; jesus Christ !! not only narrow connections.
found flaw? see previous post for details and then judge for yourself.
link
https://thinkforyourselfn8.blogspot.com/2019/06/surface-area-of-earth.html
there.
Title: OUR PLANET
Name: Earth
Area: 197 million square miles [based on estimated radius] (510 million square km.)
Sea area: 139.6 million square miles (362 million square km)
land area: 57 million square miles (148 million square km)
circumferences: mid between poles of spin 24,900 miles (40,000 km) so RADIUS there 3963 miles (6378k), around axis/poles of spin 24,800 miles (39,900 km) so radius there 3950 miles (6357k) c/pi
Land, in size order, giant islands [3]
Ural 33 million square miles MSM (85 million square km, MSK) and not including nile land
Ural: 21msm (54msk), Nile: 12msm (31msk)
Names from Greek [outdated except for school exams]: africa, asia, europe
Amazon, area 16msm (41msk).
names: north and south america
South island, 5.5msm (14msk)
name: antarctica
Medium Islands [2 between 5msm and 0.3msm]
Australia 3msm (7.7msk)
Greenland 0.8msm (2.2msk)
sea area [surface] 139.6 million square miles (362 million square km).
names: Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, Pacific
area as above because connected with wide connections; jesus Christ !! not only narrow connections.
found flaw? see previous post for details and then judge for yourself.
link
https://thinkforyourselfn8.blogspot.com/2019/06/surface-area-of-earth.html
there.
Thursday, June 6, 2019
ocean surface?
a certain book has some "facts" that are certainly wrong.
146 million square miles. yet as previously calculated the surface area is much less. only 139.6 m.s.m
the book refutes its own total claiming "total surface area"510,100,000" composed of 378 m. sk and 149 m.s.k yet that total is far from 510 million. 378+149=527 so certainly wrong.
even based on its own wrong radius "6378.4" if so such a sphere would be 511 m.s.k. not 510 as above. the book claims sea is 360 msk called four names... despite the water CONTIN-ues… then lists each area totaling far more than 360 msk.
so I fix the problem by warning you about the bad book of "fcts" and recalculated in the previous post.
surface area: around 196.7 million square miles.
sea surface 71% of that is 139.6 million square miles of surface area which is SEA.
196-139=57 m.sm. are continents and islands.
the largest island has the ural mountains and its area including both sides of ural mountains because the land continues is in previous post with explanation.
https://thinkforyourselfn8.blogspot.com/2019/06/surface-area-of-earth.html
there
146 million square miles. yet as previously calculated the surface area is much less. only 139.6 m.s.m
the book refutes its own total claiming "total surface area"510,100,000" composed of 378 m. sk and 149 m.s.k yet that total is far from 510 million. 378+149=527 so certainly wrong.
even based on its own wrong radius "6378.4" if so such a sphere would be 511 m.s.k. not 510 as above. the book claims sea is 360 msk called four names... despite the water CONTIN-ues… then lists each area totaling far more than 360 msk.
so I fix the problem by warning you about the bad book of "fcts" and recalculated in the previous post.
surface area: around 196.7 million square miles.
sea surface 71% of that is 139.6 million square miles of surface area which is SEA.
196-139=57 m.sm. are continents and islands.
the largest island has the ural mountains and its area including both sides of ural mountains because the land continues is in previous post with explanation.
https://thinkforyourselfn8.blogspot.com/2019/06/surface-area-of-earth.html
there
distance to sun
we see the sun, it appears larger than other stars, but what is the distance to the sun?
usually we unroll a ribbon to find the length but we cannot physic-ly measure to the sun and we can barely go and measure 8 kilometers up a tall mountain so we can use the triangle formulas.
if we know the distance to the moon at the time when the moon is "right angle 90 degrees" from our planet earth then that is the base of a right triangle so if we know two angles and the length of the base we can calculate the length with triangle formula.
to know the distance to the sun first we must find a right angle. we see the moon changes in cycles from full disk bright to less and return to full disk. when the moon is half bright we know that we are aligned so the sunlight hits the face of the moon and we see from the side so that is 90 degrees called right triangle the we can calculate with sin or cosin or tangent.
next for finding the distance to sun we need the length to the moon which they found. over 2000 years ago hipparchus found the length around year 150 bc. story: "observing the Moon from two cities a known distance apart, Hipparchus used a little geometry to compute its distance to within 7% of today’s modern value " first he used this triangular method to measure the angle of the triangle to the moon with length between two cities. the distance to moon averages to around 384.4 thousand kilometers or 384.4 million meters known from the two cities and angles. that side of triangle called base of the triangle together with the two angles: angle a= 90 degrees when we face side of moon half bright with the angular degrees of the second angle 89.8 degrees almost 90, [they estimated 87 degrees in ancient times pretty close], indicates far.
another story following the instructions of halley [edmund lived around 1700] he predicted when venus would pass between earth and sun and how to compute and they did hence discovering "French astronomer Jerome Lalande collected all the data and computed the first accurate distance to the Sun: 153 million kilometers, good to within three percent of the true value" but a bit more than the distance we know now,
knowing the two angles of the triangle 90 [from side called right angle] and 89.8 we can calculate the length of the sides "Side a = 384 units therefore: Side b = 110,007.4 and Side c = 110,008.1" very far 110 million kilometers. good estimate but using halley calculation was more precise and we discovered even further from sun.
now the idea of meter itself is troublesome but once we know 110 million kilometer and 153 million kilometer and 149.6 million kilometer we can estimate based on the speed of light that light needs eight minutes and nineteen seconds to reach earth from the sun. As of 2012, 1 AU = 149,597,870,700 meters exactly. so 149.6m.km.
we call that one unit and we can use that to say that planets nearer to the sun than us, are less than one a.u. while the further ones are more than one au.
list: from sun to each planet, in AU.
Mercury: 0.387 AU
Venus: 0.723 AU
Earth: 1.000 AU=one astronomical unit (AU) = 92,955,807 miles (149,597,871 km). since 149,597,870,700 meters at speed 299,792,458 meters each second, 499 seconds 19 seconds more than 8 minutes so around 500 light-seconds away.
Mars: 1.524 AU
Jupiter: 5.203 AU
Saturn: 9.582 AU
Uranus: 19.201 AU
Neptune: 30.047 AU
in summary mercury is nearly one third between e and sun. but venus is 2/3.
saturn is twice as far from earth as jupiter and u is twice as far from e as saturn.
saturn is around midway between e and u. and jupiter is around midway between e and s.
the Earth’s orbit isn’t perfectly round, we actually get about 3% closer and farther throughout the course of a year.
now that we built the system on the flawed foundation of meters and translated it to a.u. we can say why meter is bad.
the system of kilometer and centimeter is based on meters and ten which has a flaw we can only divide evenly in 2 or 5 but not 3 or 4 the whole reason we divided the day into 24 hours is to allow thirds in even parts and sam divided the year cycle as defined astronomicly into twelve months so we have even thirds. but a third of a meter is a problem and then "rounding" to the nearest meter is inaccurate.
also the decision that a certain length is called a meter iis stupid. what did they do? they calculated the circumference of the earth and cut it into millions of peices. why is that better than anything else? keep the traditional kings shoe. in fact the same shoe could be worn by many kings if the shoe is big enough and padding is inserted ! so better to use the "foot" of the king as measured in the "universal king shoe" which the king long ago put one and that "foot" can be divided into twelve inches the same system as twelve month division of the year.
usually we unroll a ribbon to find the length but we cannot physic-ly measure to the sun and we can barely go and measure 8 kilometers up a tall mountain so we can use the triangle formulas.
if we know the distance to the moon at the time when the moon is "right angle 90 degrees" from our planet earth then that is the base of a right triangle so if we know two angles and the length of the base we can calculate the length with triangle formula.
to know the distance to the sun first we must find a right angle. we see the moon changes in cycles from full disk bright to less and return to full disk. when the moon is half bright we know that we are aligned so the sunlight hits the face of the moon and we see from the side so that is 90 degrees called right triangle the we can calculate with sin or cosin or tangent.
next for finding the distance to sun we need the length to the moon which they found. over 2000 years ago hipparchus found the length around year 150 bc. story: "observing the Moon from two cities a known distance apart, Hipparchus used a little geometry to compute its distance to within 7% of today’s modern value " first he used this triangular method to measure the angle of the triangle to the moon with length between two cities. the distance to moon averages to around 384.4 thousand kilometers or 384.4 million meters known from the two cities and angles. that side of triangle called base of the triangle together with the two angles: angle a= 90 degrees when we face side of moon half bright with the angular degrees of the second angle 89.8 degrees almost 90, [they estimated 87 degrees in ancient times pretty close], indicates far.
another story following the instructions of halley [edmund lived around 1700] he predicted when venus would pass between earth and sun and how to compute and they did hence discovering "French astronomer Jerome Lalande collected all the data and computed the first accurate distance to the Sun: 153 million kilometers, good to within three percent of the true value" but a bit more than the distance we know now,
knowing the two angles of the triangle 90 [from side called right angle] and 89.8 we can calculate the length of the sides "Side a = 384 units therefore: Side b = 110,007.4 and Side c = 110,008.1" very far 110 million kilometers. good estimate but using halley calculation was more precise and we discovered even further from sun.
now the idea of meter itself is troublesome but once we know 110 million kilometer and 153 million kilometer and 149.6 million kilometer we can estimate based on the speed of light that light needs eight minutes and nineteen seconds to reach earth from the sun. As of 2012, 1 AU = 149,597,870,700 meters exactly. so 149.6m.km.
we call that one unit and we can use that to say that planets nearer to the sun than us, are less than one a.u. while the further ones are more than one au.
list: from sun to each planet, in AU.
Mercury: 0.387 AU
Venus: 0.723 AU
Earth: 1.000 AU=one astronomical unit (AU) = 92,955,807 miles (149,597,871 km). since 149,597,870,700 meters at speed 299,792,458 meters each second, 499 seconds 19 seconds more than 8 minutes so around 500 light-seconds away.
Mars: 1.524 AU
Jupiter: 5.203 AU
Saturn: 9.582 AU
Uranus: 19.201 AU
Neptune: 30.047 AU
in summary mercury is nearly one third between e and sun. but venus is 2/3.
saturn is twice as far from earth as jupiter and u is twice as far from e as saturn.
saturn is around midway between e and u. and jupiter is around midway between e and s.
the Earth’s orbit isn’t perfectly round, we actually get about 3% closer and farther throughout the course of a year.
now that we built the system on the flawed foundation of meters and translated it to a.u. we can say why meter is bad.
the system of kilometer and centimeter is based on meters and ten which has a flaw we can only divide evenly in 2 or 5 but not 3 or 4 the whole reason we divided the day into 24 hours is to allow thirds in even parts and sam divided the year cycle as defined astronomicly into twelve months so we have even thirds. but a third of a meter is a problem and then "rounding" to the nearest meter is inaccurate.
also the decision that a certain length is called a meter iis stupid. what did they do? they calculated the circumference of the earth and cut it into millions of peices. why is that better than anything else? keep the traditional kings shoe. in fact the same shoe could be worn by many kings if the shoe is big enough and padding is inserted ! so better to use the "foot" of the king as measured in the "universal king shoe" which the king long ago put one and that "foot" can be divided into twelve inches the same system as twelve month division of the year.
surface area of earth
to find surface area of earth we need to know the radius of the sphere [not including the height of mountains in radius] and since sea cover around 70 percent so also without oceans that is water so radius smaller and MUST use radius. still for my goal I will not subtract the uneven depth of the sea for the reason explained below.
if we know the circ. only based on radius then we cannot know radius based on circumference. I could claim any number "the radius of the earth must be five meters" because the circumference is 15 meters. how do I know the c? simple 5pi so five times three must be 15. despite the stupidity of the method one website makes that circular claim about the circumference of the earth.
if you use meters and don't mind that a third is 3.33 "repeating" then see below. however in time culture knew to divide in a manner that the parts would simply calculated for example the orbit which defines one year was split into 12 month and the day which is defined by the spin into 24 hours. deceivers try to hide this as if a day is defined by 24 hours. but you must be alert for deception.
the circumference of the earth is known. what about the surface area? we should estimate USING Radius 3956 because nasa estimated "Equatorial radius 3963 miles but Polar radius 3950 miles" we see not precisely a sphere so use mid for estimate. 3956 miles.
from radius we can calculate the surface area. we must not add the mountains to the radius because only small areas have the peaks of 8.8 kilometers high. so for the purpose of this article we will use sea level and include the depth of water in the radius, despite the fact that water covers 72% [based on a flawed book with many problems] and better without water, still for my goal this exception will be relavant.
based on radius the surface area must be 196.7 million square miles and simply "197msm".
the formula: "4pi radius squared." so 12.566 times radius squared totals 196.7 million square miles.
we know the surface of the earth is covered by seventy one percent water. water is "about 71% of the Earth’s surface, while the other 29% consists of continents and islands". universetoday dot com.
so 71% of that is 139.6 million square miles of surface area which is SEA.
196-139=57msm remain above sea level.
the sea surround all the land so the so-called-continents are truly islands and the way to distinguish is to add the true description "giant islands." classifying which group based on size is debatable so simply all are islands but some are giant.
Were I a brit I would want Australia to be a continent so I could brag "we control a continent and a subcontinent" but such bias would be bad. and that is what the bad brits did so we must recognize and reject considering smaller than even "south America" and smaller even than Brazil area.
the bad greeks decided that Greece was in Europe but across the water is separated by water so needs different name: to their east "asia" which is bad because the land CONTIN-ues. so the proper name should be ural continent. also before they dug the narrow shallow suez canal the surface connected to the nile region which if separate should be called nile continent but perhaps shallow does not truly separate so that island is around 33 m. square miles. the second largest island, with the long amazon river and shorter Mississippi river hence good name "amazon" is 16 million square miles. less than half can that be a continent? yet so large... and three times the next one: the southern continent 5.5msm so much less that it cannot be a continent. still we have five fingers on our hand so five is big enuf and certainly the amazon continent. some books say the largest island is Greenland but that is so mach larger than the "second largest" 0.3msm hence separate categories. even the southern continent is a problem as above. the fact is ural continent is truly surrounded by water so it is an island.
now for meters.
circ. is "40 million meters" then radius 6.366. then 4pi radius squared for surface of sphere.
r 6.366? but not perfect sphere so use middle between as above not 6378 too much!
40,041 km so r 6373 hence 510.4m.kms. v,
r squared *4pi
fixing the bad book: in metric should say surface 509 msk as translated from miles. the books number does not metch "even" its own claimed radius ratio.
sea 361.5 but book wrong not total own 378 nor 361.5 but less. radius should be estimated as abve because not sphere.
circumference 40,005 or 40,075 not like bad book.
distance to sun 499 light-seconds and bad book off by 90 thousand kilometers.
if we know the circ. only based on radius then we cannot know radius based on circumference. I could claim any number "the radius of the earth must be five meters" because the circumference is 15 meters. how do I know the c? simple 5pi so five times three must be 15. despite the stupidity of the method one website makes that circular claim about the circumference of the earth.
if you use meters and don't mind that a third is 3.33 "repeating" then see below. however in time culture knew to divide in a manner that the parts would simply calculated for example the orbit which defines one year was split into 12 month and the day which is defined by the spin into 24 hours. deceivers try to hide this as if a day is defined by 24 hours. but you must be alert for deception.
the circumference of the earth is known. what about the surface area? we should estimate USING Radius 3956 because nasa estimated "Equatorial radius 3963 miles but Polar radius 3950 miles" we see not precisely a sphere so use mid for estimate. 3956 miles.
from radius we can calculate the surface area. we must not add the mountains to the radius because only small areas have the peaks of 8.8 kilometers high. so for the purpose of this article we will use sea level and include the depth of water in the radius, despite the fact that water covers 72% [based on a flawed book with many problems] and better without water, still for my goal this exception will be relavant.
based on radius the surface area must be 196.7 million square miles and simply "197msm".
the formula: "4pi radius squared." so 12.566 times radius squared totals 196.7 million square miles.
we know the surface of the earth is covered by seventy one percent water. water is "about 71% of the Earth’s surface, while the other 29% consists of continents and islands". universetoday dot com.
so 71% of that is 139.6 million square miles of surface area which is SEA.
196-139=57msm remain above sea level.
the sea surround all the land so the so-called-continents are truly islands and the way to distinguish is to add the true description "giant islands." classifying which group based on size is debatable so simply all are islands but some are giant.
Were I a brit I would want Australia to be a continent so I could brag "we control a continent and a subcontinent" but such bias would be bad. and that is what the bad brits did so we must recognize and reject considering smaller than even "south America" and smaller even than Brazil area.
the bad greeks decided that Greece was in Europe but across the water is separated by water so needs different name: to their east "asia" which is bad because the land CONTIN-ues. so the proper name should be ural continent. also before they dug the narrow shallow suez canal the surface connected to the nile region which if separate should be called nile continent but perhaps shallow does not truly separate so that island is around 33 m. square miles. the second largest island, with the long amazon river and shorter Mississippi river hence good name "amazon" is 16 million square miles. less than half can that be a continent? yet so large... and three times the next one: the southern continent 5.5msm so much less that it cannot be a continent. still we have five fingers on our hand so five is big enuf and certainly the amazon continent. some books say the largest island is Greenland but that is so mach larger than the "second largest" 0.3msm hence separate categories. even the southern continent is a problem as above. the fact is ural continent is truly surrounded by water so it is an island.
now for meters.
circ. is "40 million meters" then radius 6.366. then 4pi radius squared for surface of sphere.
r 6.366? but not perfect sphere so use middle between as above not 6378 too much!
40,041 km so r 6373 hence 510.4m.kms. v,
r squared *4pi
fixing the bad book: in metric should say surface 509 msk as translated from miles. the books number does not metch "even" its own claimed radius ratio.
sea 361.5 but book wrong not total own 378 nor 361.5 but less. radius should be estimated as abve because not sphere.
circumference 40,005 or 40,075 not like bad book.
distance to sun 499 light-seconds and bad book off by 90 thousand kilometers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)