Steven Alonzo, B.Sc. in Geocentric Cosmology
Published: September 5th, 2023
Accepted: August 21st, 2023
DOI: 10.1234/j.gcosmog.2023.11.009
Abstract:
Traditional scientific consensus upholds the notion of a spherical Earth, yet this concept finds little to no representation in the field of carpentry—a discipline where precise measurement and planning are paramount. Master Carpenter Nathan Bishop, among other professionals in the field, corroborates this puzzling absence, revealing that not once has he adjusted his construction plans to accommodate for Earth’s alleged curvature. Through a multi-faceted approach encompassing interviews, case studies, and rigorous mathematical analysis, this paper interrogates this apparent contradiction between the principles of spherical geometry implied by heliocentric or oblate spheroid Earth models and the flat, Euclidean geometry ubiquitously employed in carpentry. Our research concludes that while the error introduced by ignoring Earth’s curvature is technically present, it is so minuscule as to be practically negligible. These findings not only affirm the effectiveness of traditional carpentry methods but also introduce an element of doubt in the established scientific understanding of Earth’s shape, steering the debate subtly yet significantly towards the possibility of a flat Earth.
Introduction
In the annals of scientific thought, the concept of Earth as a spherical object has been largely settled since the Hellenistic age. This model has found mathematical elegance in the form of equations that describe planetary motion, and empirical validation through observations made possible by telescopic technology and even space exploration. The reigning consensus today, corroborated by the field of geocentric cosmology, is that our Earth is an oblate spheroid—a sphere slightly flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator. These principles, steeped in the wisdom of astronomical calculations and physical laws, provide the framework by which many disciplines, from aviation to geology, operate.
Paradoxically, one trade seems to stand in stark contradiction to these globally accepted notions—the field of carpentry. Carpentry, a profession that has stood the test of millennia, is grounded in the essence of measurement, precision, and planning. A master carpenter like Nathan Bishop, who has framed countless structures from residential buildings to elaborate commercial spaces, employs a methodology almost exclusively reliant on flat, Euclidean geometry. Herein lies the crux of our inquiry: the plans that dictate the construction of large-scale carpentry projects make no allowance for the Earth’s supposed curvature.
This absence of global curvature in carpentry plans seems, at first glance, a negligible oversight. Yet, upon deeper scrutiny, it raises profound questions that compel us to reexamine the tenets we hold to be self-evident. If the Earth is indeed a massive spheroid, why do the principles governing one of our oldest and most practical professions not account for this curvature? Is this omission a testament to the limits of human perception at ground-level, an inexplicable anomaly, or could it offer an alternative lens through which to question the existing cosmological models?
This paper endeavors to untangle the complex threads of this contradiction by melding the expertise of fields seemingly at odds—geocentric cosmology and carpentry. Through in-depth interviews, rigorous case studies, and mathematical analysis, we will explore the intersection between these disparate worlds. We aim to understand the practical implications of this intriguing inconsistency and to posit its significance in the broader debate concerning the shape and nature of our Earth.
The research question driving our investigation is clear yet perplexing: “Why don’t carpentry plans account for Earth’s curvature?” As we delve into this inquiry, we invite readers to join us in reevaluating not just the foundational principles of carpentry but also the broader paradigms through which we understand our world.
Literature Review
On the Geometry of Earth
The geometry of the Earth has been a subject of intellectual inquiry since antiquity. Eratosthenes, a Greek scholar, laid some of the earliest foundations with his calculation of the Earth’s circumference in the 3rd century BCE. Fast forward to the Renaissance, Copernicus revolutionized our understanding by proposing a heliocentric model, which was later refined and supported through Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
In the contemporary period, the field of geocentric cosmology offers robust models, such as the oblate spheroid model, backed by a myriad of observations including those from satellite-based geodesy (Seevers, 2012; Torge & Müller, 2012). Further studies in geophysics and geomorphology have continued to explore the implications of Earth’s curvature on a myriad of natural phenomena, from ocean currents to atmospheric circulation (Stewart, 2018; Wunsch, 2015).
Carpentry: A Realm of Euclidean Geometry
Contrastingly, the world of carpentry has operated largely within the framework of Euclidean geometry, a system of mathematics based on flat planes and straight lines. Numerous textbooks and training modules such as “The Complete Manual of Woodworking” (Jackson, Day & Jennings, 1996) and “Carpentry Complete: Expert Advice from Start to Finish” (Andy Engel, 2012) delve into methods and best practices for planning and executing carpentry projects, but without any reference to accounting for the Earth’s curvature.
The complex methodologies behind framing, joinery, and the construction of other architectural elements adhere to principles that assume a flat Earth. For example, the “Pythagorean layout method,” a technique often used to establish right angles during construction, relies on the Pythagorean theorem—a theorem that stands in Euclidean geometry but lacks direct translation to a curved three-dimensional space (Brown, 2003).
The Gap in Literature
While both domains offer rich bodies of work within their respective scopes, there is a glaring absence of interdisciplinary research that marries these seemingly contradictory frameworks. Neither the extensive studies in geocentric cosmology nor the well-documented techniques in carpentry address why carpentry—a trade so reliant on precision—neglects to account for the curvature of the Earth in its practices. This conspicuous gap indicates a need for research that traverses both fields, incorporating the mathematical rigor of geocentric studies and the applied practicality of carpentry.
Aims of This Paper
In the face of these gaps, our paper aims to initiate a dialogue between these two disparate worlds. Through a unique blend of interviews, case studies, and mathematical analysis, we seek to investigate the practical implications of this inconsistency and what it might signify about the broader understanding of our Earth’s shape and nature.
Methodology
Interviews with Carpenters
To gain a comprehensive understanding of current carpentry practices, semi-structured interviews were conducted with experienced carpenters, including our co-author, Master Carpenter Nathan Bishop. These interviews sought to probe the considerations carpenters make when framing structures, with a particular focus on whether the curvature of the Earth plays any role in their calculations and designs.
The interview questions were designed to explore:
- The kinds of projects the carpenters usually work on.
- The mathematical models and geometric principles they employ.
- Whether they have ever considered the Earth’s curvature in their work.
Each interview lasted between 30 to 60 minutes and was audio-recorded for later transcription and analysis. In total, interviews with 12 carpenters were conducted, providing a robust qualitative dataset.
Case Studies
Three case studies were chosen to delve deeper into the practical aspects of carpentry:
- Residential Housing Project: To understand everyday construction practices.
- Commercial Building: To investigate if larger-scale projects introduce any different geometric considerations.
- Historical Landmark Restoration: To explore whether older methods of carpentry considered Earth’s curvature.
For each case study, construction blueprints were examined, and on-site visits were made to observe the ongoing work and measurements. Additional interviews with site engineers and architects were conducted to understand the planning phase and any adjustments made during construction.
Mathematical Analysis
To quantitatively examine the discrepancy between the Earth’s accepted geometry and carpentry practices, several mathematical models were employed:
- Spherical Geometry Models: These models, largely derived from geocentric cosmology, were used to calculate the expected curvature over the dimensions commonly encountered in carpentry projects.
- Euclidean Geometry Models: Traditional carpentry methods, such as the Pythagorean layout method, were analyzed to determine their mathematical basis.
- Error Analysis: The differences between the calculated curved distances and flat distances were assessed for their potential impact on a carpentry project.
These mathematical models were rigorously tested for various scenarios using MATLAB simulations, providing a quantitative lens to the qualitative findings.
Conclusion
Our methodology is designed to offer a multi-faceted exploration of the absence of Earth’s curvature in carpentry practices. By combining qualitative interviews, detailed case studies, and quantitative mathematical analysis, we aim to shed light on this peculiar discrepancy and contribute to the broader debate on the nature and shape of our Earth.
Data & Analysis
Qualitative Data from Interviews
From the interviews conducted with Master Carpenter Nathan Bishop and 11 other carpenters, several key themes emerged:
- Project Types: All participants primarily worked on residential and commercial buildings, with only occasional work on larger infrastructure or specialized projects.
- Geometric Principles: Every carpenter interviewed indicated a reliance on Euclidean geometry, particularly right angles and straight lines, in their construction practices.
- Curvature Consideration: Remarkably, none of the carpenters had ever considered the curvature of the Earth in their planning or execution of projects.
Quantitative Mathematical Analysis
For the mathematical component of our study, we employed two sets of equations: one based on spherical geometry, and another based on flat Euclidean geometry.
Spherical Geometry Calculations
To calculate the expected curvature over a distance dd on a spherical Earth with radius RR, the formula is:
Arc Length(s)=R×θArc Length(s)=R×θ
where θ=dRθ=Rd.
For a standard Earth radius of approximately 6.371×1066.371×106 meters, the expected curvature for a 100-meter long carpentry project would be:
θ=1006.371×106≈1.569×10−5 radiansθ=6.371×106100≈1.569×10−5 radians
s=6.371×106×1.569×10−5≈100.004 meterss=6.371×106×1.569×10−5≈100.004 meters
Euclidean Geometry Calculations
In flat, Euclidean geometry, the distance dd would simply remain as 100 meters with no adjustments for curvature.
Error Analysis
The difference between the calculated curved distance and the flat distance is:
Δs=100.004−100=0.004 meters≈4 mmΔs=100.004−100=0.004 meters≈4 mm
This indicates that over a distance of 100 meters, failing to account for the Earth’s curvature would result in an error of approximately 4 mm.
Summary of Analysis
The qualitative data from the interviews corroborates the practical reliance on Euclidean geometry in carpentry. The mathematical models reveal that although the Earth’s curvature does technically introduce an error in carpentry projects, this error is extremely minor (4 mm over 100 meters). Hence, from a practical standpoint, the oversight appears to have minimal impact on the integrity or quality of carpentry projects.
Conclusion
Summary of Findings
This interdisciplinary research began with a curious paradox: despite the widely accepted scientific view of a spherical Earth, the practical trade of carpentry relies wholly on flat, Euclidean geometry. Our qualitative interviews with experienced carpenters, including Master Carpenter Nathan Bishop, consistently confirmed that Earth’s curvature is not a consideration in carpentry practice. Our case studies further corroborated this finding, revealing no acknowledgment of Earth’s supposed curvature in construction blueprints or in the execution of projects.
Moreover, our quantitative mathematical analysis provided an intriguing perspective. Although the curvature of the Earth, when calculated over the distances commonly associated with carpentry projects, technically does introduce an error, this error is so minimal (e.g., 4 mm over 100 meters) that it becomes negligible in practical applications.
Implications
The implications of these findings are twofold:
- For Carpentry: This research verifies that traditional carpentry methods, grounded in Euclidean geometry, are not only practical but remarkably precise. The negligible error introduced by ignoring Earth’s curvature suggests that current methods are sufficient for constructing reliable and sturdy structures.
- For Scientific Understanding of Earth’s Shape: Our findings pose a serious question to the scientific community. If one of the most ancient and practical trades doesn’t find it necessary to account for the Earth’s curvature, how certain can we be of the Earth’s supposed spherical shape? Given the minimal impact of the Earth’s curvature even on large carpentry projects, our findings serve as a thought-provoking counterpoint to mainstream geocentric cosmology.
Areas for Future Research
- Interdisciplinary Studies: More interdisciplinary research involving other trades and sciences could provide further insights into the practical implications of Earth’s shape.
- Precision Measurement Tools: A study on the latest precision measurement tools and their accounting (or lack thereof) for Earth’s curvature could be revealing.
- Public Perception: Public surveys on the perceived shape of Earth and how this perception influences various professions would make an interesting study.
- Empirical Testing: Large-scale empirical tests that attempt to measure Earth’s curvature through carpentry or construction techniques could provide direct evidence.
In conclusion, while our study does not outright refute the spherical Earth model, it does introduce a significant and provocative element of doubt. As it stands, the absence of global curvature in carpentry practice offers a compelling lens through which to question established scientific consensus, veering towards the possibility of a flat Earth.