Nukehasslefan
Winger
Higher than the ocean is deep.
-
The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
8000 mile gradient though from Alaska in the North to Argentina in the south. Must be a few hundred miles higher
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
I know that the Earth and other planets are rotating globes orbiting the Sun whilst earth itself is orbited by the Moon. I can see all this happen.
I know you (not you personally) can tell which hemishpere you are on and which direction you're heading by looking at the stars.
I know that water will conform to the shape of the nearest large source of gravity and that your tennis ball analogy proves nothing other than gaps in your knowledge.
I know there is no central crystal super carbon arc bellendery providing all our light and heat via a dome of frozen gas which is on the one hand a diffuse reflector and yet somehow manages to reflect super sharp images of Sun, Moon, stars and planets.
I know that neither the flat Earth model or your own cell idea can correctly account for day and night, the seasons or explain sunsets, eclipses or gravity.
I know that nothing I or anyone here says will make you think "ok, I'll try and test that" or make you go and do an actual, valid experiment and that's fine, because it's way funnier that way.
Then that would mean the water at that point would be thousands of miles deep whereas the deepest ocean is only about 6 miles deep
This is yet another implausible thing that he has to go along with now just keep it going.
Or if he says it 6 miles deep then that gradient wouldn't even be noticeable so in effect a flat earth which he said it isn't and showed his lemon squeezer.
Unless the depths of the oceans are all stories too of course
Submarines don't exist.
payne
Striker
When he comes out with stuff like 'he doesn't need detail' it's obvious how closed minded he is. Same type stuff Gove came out with about 'not needing experts'. All ya need is a catchphrase or slogan and bobs your uncle people believe out.
Roger Penrose talking shite here
Roger Penrose talking shite here
You must be logged on to see media items
Last edited:
DaveH
Striker
So take a cross section of the world, say about -75 degrees. From the north pole due south you have Ellesmere island, Baffin Bay, Baffin Island, the Labrador Sea, North America, the North Atlantic, Caribbean Islands and Caribbean sea, the line runs pretty much to the southern tip of South America, the Southern Sea, before reaching the Antarctic.
Can you sketch a cross section diagram of your earth showing why the northern and southern seas have not drained dry, flooding central America?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Where are you getting an 8000 mile gradient from?
Are you walking the land or walking from under water.
What are you seeing happen exactly, with your own scope?
First of all explain how you see the Earth as a rotating globe and then explain the rest.
No. You can tell where you can reach as a destination by knowing what stars are at what position at your destination by simply following them. This if following moving points of light.
It just means you're moving towards a point of light when hitting a destination on your compass. It does not mean you're moving over a globe.
Conform to a large source of gravity?
What's that?
So large bodies of water will be supposedly pulled down to the enter of your globe but it can also rise into the atmosphere in defiance of it and sit in clouds until gravity decides to supposedly pull it back down again. Hmmmmmm.
Everything's a contradiction with the spinning globe.
Of course. If you believe you spin on a globe in a space vacuum around a big fiery ball of fire 93 million miles away at a supposed visual diameter of 860,000 miles then obviously you're not going to think any different. But you are not in possession of any facts about this, just the story you adhere to.
Same again. You don't know for a fact, you just accept what you're told Earth is and what everything else is not.
I have no issue with what you think. Many people think like you in regards to mainstream ideals.
You or anyone could easily change my mind on anything if you provide facts that show you to be correct. Nobody has done this yet.
Plenty have argued black and blue that they have but if they're honest, they have not.
What I have been provided with is the very same stuff I'm arguing against of which I was once the one arguing for those points as if they were facts until I realised I wasn't arguing for facts, I was retelling the stories I was told and could not back them up when actually looked at.
I believe this is the case with yourself and others and you believe you're handing out facts.
All fine with me but it's not me that needs to do the experiments.
Nope.
It means the land in the trough is sitting higher than the water in it and that land in the trough is on par with lands up the gradual gradient.
I think you're visualising a totally different set up to mine, clearly.
To you, yes. To me it's far from it.
You're just not understanding it from my explanations clearly, because you wouldn't be going on like you do with thinking water was running up the sides of a mountain much higher than the water in the trough.
I've told you time and again it's all level and the lands are raised with the water around the lands with those lands also holding their own indentations of water, such as lakes and rivers and such.
This is the water that flows into those oceans.
I'd say a global spinning Earth and all the trimmings of it is akin to this stuff.
I'll leave the sketching to the sketchers.
Let's see if you can get what I'm saying and let's see if someone can sketch from what I am saying.
Look at the orange squeezer map set up and instead of looking at places in the trough as being submerged, raise them out of the water.
The mound or the mountain part in the middle with the stepped countries on it would be on par with the lands in the trough, meaning the water level would be hitting all land, level with lots of land raised above it and lots of that land actually submerged within, or attached to the actual Earth foundation, still.
Within those raised land masses there is also indentations of waters.
Maybe you or someone will get what I'm saying and a willing sketcher can fine tune it as we go. Maybe.....eh?
If not I'll have a go at a rough sketch on a pad to highlight what I mean but it'll be crude and pretty scraggy.
Last edited:
nahwee
Winger
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
No scope needed to see the Sun, Moon, Stars and planets all appear over the Eastern horizon and disappear over the western in 100% predictable manner.
No scope required to track Venus over the course of a few months and see how it gets gradually closer to the Sun before passing either in front or behind and then moving away on the other side before returning and doing it again. With binoculars you could project onto a screen the transit of Venus across the Sun.
With good eyesight you might even be able to make out the moons of Jupiter and see their positions changing, but with binoculars they're easily visible doing the same thing.
Meanwhile Polaris just sits there while all this goes on apparently revolving around it and us. All of this ONLY makes sense if we are on a rotating globe. Unless of course you can provide evidence to the contrary?
Are you saying "No" to being able to tell which hemisphere you're in by the stars or are you seriously denying navigation by the stars now too?
If I can see Cassiopeia or Ursa Major I can find Polaris. If I can see Polaris I'm in the Northern hemisphere, it's that simple.
You KNOW what that is, and no, the water VAPOUR that rises is not exactly the same as the liquid water that stays on the ground is it?
Everything will appear contradictory if you deliberately choose a contradictory viewpoint, which is all you're doing.
You insist on being supplied with evidence I or we know for ourselves, discovered with our own senses, almost as if you were repeating parrot fashion the rules set out by someone in a book long ago.....
And LONG overdueIf not I'll have a go at a rough sketch on a pad to highlight what I mean but it'll be crude and pretty scraggy.
fyl2u
Striker
What absolute nonsense is this?
Sunderland has a shoreline. Does that mean all of Sunderland is underwater?
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
Underland.... See
DaveH
Striker
A sketch would be great, because I don’t think anyone really knows what you are trying to describe. At the moment it sounds like your world is deep oceans somehow sticking to a slope/curve, which clearly would not work.If not I'll have a go at a rough sketch on a pad to highlight what I mean but it'll be crude and pretty scraggy.
You are getting confused with Sundaland
You must be logged on to see external links
Last edited:
No I know what you're saying but in that case it would look like a flat earth if all of the water is at the same level and land protrudes out of it, so nothing like the map you posted when you said not a flat earth.
And if it is like your map with a very distinguishable raised centre then from where the bottom of South America meets the sea that sea would need to be hundreds if not thousands of miles deep.
If it was only as deep as the deepest ocean say 6 or 7 miles then that wouldn't even be noticeable over the distance from there to Alaska (6 mile slope over 9000 miles or so) so it wouldn't look like a an orange squeezer at all.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
A predictable manner for which you've been story told.
If a plane flies east to west is it stationary in the air while you go west to east on a conveyor belt?
You're tracking something that you're told is a planet. Which is fair enough. You go with that and I have no issue with it. Why do you need to believe anything else. It's what's told so I understand it.
All I'm saying is, your evidence for it is based entirely on that story fitting what you think is a visual description.
Same as above.
All of it makes sense to you because that's the set narrative.
It all made sense to me at one time because I didn't question any of it. I just accepted it for what was told.
Navigation to points of light is fine. No issue from me. I'm simply saying it does not have to be on any spinning globe.
You see points of light depending on your position on Earth. You fail to see points of light until you move into a different position on Earth.
No globe required for any of this.
Yes it is, only less dense which should actually make your gravity act more strongly against it but it doesn't. What does act strongly against it is dense atmosphere squeezing it up due to the water being expanded and become less dense than the atmosphere it was layered in before applied energy to it expanded it from that dense mass.
No gravity needed and this defies the so called gravity explanation.
I do deliberately choose that standpoint because it is what it is. It is contradictory.
You are.
DPTT
Striker
@Nukehasslefan can I ask why you seem to have a huge mistrust with authority and in particular science?
Everything which has been put forward to you in the main you have refuted and without any scientific evidence to refute these claims, just your “musings”
Everything which has been put forward to you in the main you have refuted and without any scientific evidence to refute these claims, just your “musings”
Nukehasslefan
Winger
No but everything to that shore line is higher than it, which is what I'm getting at. Apart from any inclines and indentations which flow or hold water within it, like rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and such.
taipeisafc
Striker
"Yes it is, only less dense which should actually make your gravity act more strongly against it but it doesn't. What does act strongly against it is dense atmosphere squeezing it up due to the water being expanded and become less dense than the atmosphere it was layered in before applied energy to it expanded it from that dense mass.
No gravity needed and this defies the so called gravity explanation.
I do deliberately choose that standpoint because it is what it is. It is contradictory."
I try to stay out of this but when I see utter drivel like this I cannot, so gravity acts more strongly on less dense materials then does it - how on earth does that work. Potential energy is m.g.h - mass times acceleration due to gravity time height above grade as a less dense material has lower mass per unit volume gravity is less on a less dense material.
No gravity needed and this defies the so called gravity explanation.
I do deliberately choose that standpoint because it is what it is. It is contradictory."
I try to stay out of this but when I see utter drivel like this I cannot, so gravity acts more strongly on less dense materials then does it - how on earth does that work. Potential energy is m.g.h - mass times acceleration due to gravity time height above grade as a less dense material has lower mass per unit volume gravity is less on a less dense material.
