Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

That's no different to what I offered as a section but if the base land mass follows a lemon squeezer then the water depths at the lower area have to be ridiculously deep, like hundreds or thousands of miles?

You must be logged on to see external links

I honestly don't know where you're getting that from.

And for context on my sketch which represents a section from say alaska to South America (Upper area to lower bowl)
The deepest indentation based on the deepest seas being say 6 miles deep would show as 0.2mm deep on that A4 paper, so no lemon squeezer shape, basically a flat earth.

If it was a flat Earth it would be flat but it isn't.
I've already said it's a gradual gradient, not a mountain view.
I have no idea where you get the thousands of miles deep from.

That's not a cross-section picture.

It's a sketch. A 5 minute sketch.
It's exactly what I said it would be. Crap.

 

[fyl2u]

It's a sketch. A 5 minute sketch.
It's exactly what I said it would be. Crap.

I wasn't commenting on the quality of it, I was commenting on the subject matter.

You were asked to produce a sketch of a cross-section of your imagined world that explained how a lemon-squeezer world's oceans wouldn't get deeper the further south you got before the sudden incline for the outer wall.

Instead you drew a sketch of a top-down view of your world, which is fine, it's just not what folks were asking you for.

 

[legend7]

I honestly don't know where you're getting that from.

If it was a flat Earth it would be flat but it isn't.
I've already said it's a gradual gradient, not a mountain view.
I have no idea where you get the thousands of miles deep from.

It's a sketch. A 5 minute sketch.
It's exactly what I said it would be. Crap.

I posted a cross section to represent land masses pushing up through the seas obviously higher at the lower bowl than the top which you said was representative of your thoughts.
Then when I and others pointed out that the seas in the lower bowl would be ridiculously deep you said no.
You were going to produce a section like mine to show how you could have a lemon squeezer shaped gradual slope across the main "earth", land masses coming through but seas less than ten miles deep, that's what we have all been waiting for as basically it isn't possible.
Need to get your pencil back out fella.
So a cross section starting at the crystal area on the left and finishing at the "ice ring" bearing in mind that distance is 9-10 thousand miles when you do put the seas in very very very roughly to scale.....

As a side note the quality of your sketch was actually pretty good, just not what you said you were doing.

 

[What A Waster]

I honestly don't know where you're getting that from.

If it was a flat Earth it would be flat but it isn't.
I've already said it's a gradual gradient, not a mountain view.
I have no idea where you get the thousands of miles deep from.

It's a sketch. A 5 minute sketch.
It's exactly what I said it would be. Crap.

Lets try and put some figures on it.
Lemon squeezer earth's oceans.
How deep is the arctic ocean compared to south Atlantic off the coast of Argentina?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I wasn't commenting on the quality of it, I was commenting on the subject matter.

You were asked to produce a sketch of a cross-section of your imagined world that explained how a lemon-squeezer world's oceans wouldn't get deeper the further south you got before the sudden incline for the outer wall.

Instead you drew a sketch of a top-down view of your world, which is fine, it's just not what folks were asking you for.

It's about putting your own mind to work on how I've put it out.
It's there to see if you want to.... or simply don't.

I posted a cross section to represent land masses pushing up through the seas obviously higher at the lower bowl than the top which you said was representative of your thoughts.
Then when I and others pointed out that the seas in the lower bowl would be ridiculously deep you said no.

I didn't say it was a representation of my set up. I said water sitting in a container was against landmass.
I was asked how it stayed on Earth and you put out that bit of a sketch. I simply said yes.

The issue here is, you're looking at stuff in terms of hundreds/thousands of miles deep water because of supposed thousands of miles high central mountain and a curved up inner dome. I seriously don't get why you go with this unless you're looking at your very own Earth globe as some kind of reference, or you're taking the orange squeezer Earth as is and assuming it stays exactly like that over the entire Earth distance.

I presume this is why you go on about me not knowing what scale means because you are simply using that exact diagram and assuming the scale of it would rise thousands of miles based on that set up.

You were going to produce a section like mine to show how you could have a lemon squeezer shaped gradual slope across the main "earth", land masses coming through but seas less than ten miles deep, that's what we have all been waiting for as basically it isn't possible.

The sketch if you look at it should tell you everything, as crude as it is.

Need to get your pencil back out fella.So a cross section starting at the crystal area on the left and finishing at the "ice ring" bearing in mind that distance is 9-10 thousand miles when you do put the seas in very very very roughly to scale.....

As a side note the quality of your sketch was actually pretty good, just not what you said you were doing.

Maybe I'll knock one up.

Lets try and put some figures on it.
Lemon squeezer earth's oceans.
How deep is the arctic ocean compared to south Atlantic off the coast of Argentina?

I don't know how deep they are.

 

[legend7]

It's about putting your own mind to work on how I've put it out.
It's there to see if you want to.... or simply don't.

I didn't say it was a representation of my set up. I said water sitting in a container was against landmass.
I was asked how it stayed on Earth and you put out that bit of a sketch. I simply said yes.

The issue here is, you're looking at stuff in terms of hundreds/thousands of miles deep water because of supposed thousands of miles high central mountain and a curved up inner dome. I seriously don't get why you go with this unless you're looking at your very own Earth globe as some kind of reference, or you're taking the orange squeezer Earth as is and assuming it stays exactly like that over the entire Earth distance.

I presume this is why you go on about me not knowing what scale means because you are simply using that exact diagram and assuming the scale of it would rise thousands of miles based on that set up.



The sketch if you look at it should tell you everything, as crude as it is.

Maybe I'll knock one up.

I don't know how deep they are.

I'm not saying there are hundreds of thousands of miles high mountains at all mate.
Let's keep it simple, even if you wanted to draw a straight line with a gradual slope on a piece of paper that was even just very slightly sloped, say 5mm variance from one side of A4 paper to the other, still nowhere near looking as defined or sloping as your world, you could say still pretty much level/horizontal.
Bearing in mind the cross section represents the high level of your dome to the left down to the low area, that 5mm drop represents appx 150 miles to scale.
So if landmasses need to break through the sea from the lower area......
I do know what you're trying to say, hence my cross section but I don't think you're grasping the scale or the numbers involved.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

...

 

[legend7]

...

Is there more to come....

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Let's make things simple.
You took the diagram I posted as being mine. I'm talking about the Orlando Ferguson map. I merely used it as a show diagram to illustrate my stance on what I believe may be our reality.

I could've used an orange squeezer but that would've equally raised the same questions amid obvious attempted ridicule.
The thing is, you seem to know what I'm saying or you wouldn't be mentioning what you are.

So how about you draw what you think I mean and I'll tell you when you're closer to the set up, if this is causing you a bit of grief.

I used two maps if you can remember correctly. This should've given you a bit of food for thought. Can you remember? It wasn't too far back.

Let's make it simple again.

A gradual gradient is exactly what it says. I even mentioned about trekking it and not really realising you're gaining height as in, if you were walking up a hill.

Basically we're talking a walk over MAYBE a few thousands miles to the centre but we can't get to the centre so you have to take that as nothing more than a guess.

However, most of the gradient is in water as a slope down.
Go down to a beach and walk towards the low tide. You know you're walking down into a bowl but it's so gradual.

This is what it would be like with the set up I gave.
You see raised islands coming out of deep sea and you see many massive continents that rise up out of the sea in the same manner I explained.

If you can't get your head around it then it's best you do as many sketches as you think you need to do to get it to what I'm trying to explain.

I told you what would happen the second I put up a sketch so why would I waste another second doing one.

I'll leave that to you and others and if you don't want to then just leave it at that and go with what you think. I have no issue of you want to think the oceans are thousands of miles deep according to your take on my Earth musing.
It changes nothing from my side.

Is there more to come....

Unfortunately for some reason my post went in after I typed a few words. I simply edited it because this set up only gives you 5 minutes to edit.

 

[payne]

Is there more to come....

he doesn't understand. He only uses perfect logic to reason.

on another note here's some start up that must have been brought into the lie

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[legend7]

Let's make things simple.
You took the diagram I posted as being mine. I'm talking about the Orlando Ferguson map. I merely used it as a show diagram to illustrate my stance on what I believe may be our reality.

I could've used an orange squeezer but that would've equally raised the same questions amid obvious attempted ridicule.
The thing is, you seem to know what I'm saying or you wouldn't be mentioning what you are.

So how about you draw what you think I mean and I'll tell you when you're closer to the set up, if this is causing you a bit of grief.

I used two maps if you can remember correctly. This should've given you a bit of food for thought. Can you remember? It wasn't too far back.

Let's make it simple again.

A gradual gradient is exactly what it says. I even mentioned about trekking it and not really realising you're gaining height as in, if you were walking up a hill.

Basically we're talking a walk over MAYBE a few thousands miles to the centre but we can't get to the centre so you have to take that as nothing more than a guess.

However, most of the gradient is in water as a slope down.
Go down to a beach and walk towards the low tide. You know you're walking down into a bowl but it's so gradual.

This is what it would be like with the set up I gave.
You see raised islands coming out of deep sea and you see many massive continents that rise up out of the sea in the same manner I explained.

If you can't get your head around it then it's best you do as many sketches as you think you need to do to get it to what I'm trying to explain.

I told you what would happen the second I put up a sketch so why would I waste another second doing one.

I'll leave that to you and others and if you don;t want to then just leave it at that and go with what you think. I have no issue of you want to think the oceans are thousands of miles deep according to your take on my Earth musing.
It changes nothing from my side.

Unfortunately for some reason my post went in after I typed a few words. I simply edited it because this set up only gives you 5 minutes to edit.

No I totally get what you're saying but it doesn't work using words which is why you were going to do a rough cross section.
Now you're saying it "may" be a few thousand miles to the centre (North pole), are you disputing it's appx 9000 miles from the bottom of South America to alaska?
If we reverse it and agree the deepest sea is less than 10 miles deep you wouldn't see anything like your world, even if it was a gradual steady slope it wouldn't be noticeable to the naked eye on a scale A4 drawing (less than 0.5mm across the page) so it would be a flat earth.

 

[payne]

No I totally get what you're saying but it doesn't work using words which is why you were going to do a rough cross section.
Now you're saying it "may" be a few thousand miles to the centre (North pole), are you disputing it's appx 9000 miles from the bottom of South America to alaska?
If we reverse it and agree the deepest sea is less than 10 miles deep you wouldn't see anything like your world, even if it was a gradual steady slope it wouldn't be noticeable to the naked eye on a scale A4 drawing (less than 0.5mm across the page) so it would be a flat earth.

he never said it was flat, water is unhindered

 

[DaveH]

he doesn't understand. He only uses perfect logic to reason.

on another note here's some start up that must have been brought into the lie

You must be logged on to see external links

A private company spending millions into sending fake rockets up, then having to junk them somewhere, with the aim of sending up fake satellites, also to junk and then have to fake signals. I wonder what is in it for them?

Or perhaps the millions of people worldwide working in all the industries that would have to fake space and fake the shape of the earth are the things that are not real and there are not millions in on the lie out to trick us.

 

[payne]

A private company spending millions into sending fake rockets up, then having to junk them somewhere, with the aim of sending up fake satellites, also to junk and then have to fake signals. I wonder what is in it for them?

Or perhaps the millions of people worldwide working in all the industries that would have to fake space and fake the shape of the earth are the things that are not real and there are not millions in on the lie out to trick us.

nar, they've got a massive contract off Paramount

 

[DaveH]

I'm not saying there are hundreds of thousands of miles high mountains at all mate.
Let's keep it simple, even if you wanted to draw a straight line with a gradual slope on a piece of paper that was even just very slightly sloped, say 5mm variance from one side of A4 paper to the other, still nowhere near looking as defined or sloping as your world, you could say still pretty much level/horizontal.
Bearing in mind the cross section represents the high level of your dome to the left down to the low area, that 5mm drop represents appx 150 miles to scale.
So if landmasses need to break through the sea from the lower area......
I do know what you're trying to say, hence my cross section but I don't think you're grasping the scale or the numbers involved.

Look, the earth is flat, but it isn’t it is a lemon squeezer, but it is, but it isn’t. Just repeat that and you will be fine.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No I totally get what you're saying but it doesn't work using words which is why you were going to do a rough cross section.
Now you're saying it "may" be a few thousand miles to the centre (North pole), are you disputing it's appx 9000 miles from the bottom of South America to alaska?

Not sure why you're bringing this bit up.

If we reverse it and agree the deepest sea is less than 10 miles deep you wouldn't see anything like your world, even if it was a gradual steady slope it wouldn't be noticeable to the naked eye on a scale A4 drawing (less than 0.5mm across the page) so it would be a flat earth.

Then you're just going to have to stick with what you believe it to be.
I've tried to explain.

 

[legend7]

Not sure why you're bringing this bit up.

Then you're just going to have to stick with what you believe it to be.
I've tried to explain.

You haven't though you can't explain what you're saying as a drawing because it's impossible.
Like me saying to you, draw a square with sides of 10cm, 10cm, 10cm and 12cm.
Your world is either flat with sea depths we accept or a gradual gradient with mega deep seas, it can't be both sorry.
If you add the depth of the mariana trench to the height of everest it's about 11 miles, over the distances were talking it wouldn't even register as a ripple on a landmass cross section from your centre to your ice ring.
Unhindered water all around your world staying level too......

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You haven't though you can't explain what you're saying as a drawing because it's impossible.

Then go with that.

Like me saying to you, draw a square with sides of 10cm, 10cm, 10cm and 12cm.
Your world is either flat with sea depths we accept or a gradual gradient with mega deep seas, it can't be both sorry.

It's not flat it's just you are having trouble understanding the orange squeezer mindset because you're literally taking it as a steep central mountain thousands of miles high and an outer concavity that is the same.
I can't help you on that, it's something you'll have to just go with and brush off anything I say about it.

If you add the depth of the mariana trench to the height of everest it's about 11 miles, over the distances were talking it wouldn't even register as a ripple on a landmass cross section from your centre to your ice ring.
Unhindered water all around your world staying level too......

I can't help you. You've made your mind up so just go with that.

 

[legend7]

Then go with that.


It's not flat it's just you are having trouble understanding the orange squeezer mindset because you're literally taking it as a steep central mountain thousands of miles high and an outer concavity that is the same.
I can't help you on that, it's something you'll have to just go with and brush off anything I say about it.

I can't help you. You've made your mind up so just go with that.

I've never mentioned steep I've explained even the shallowest of gradients, even almost flat doesn't work.
You don't understand scale unfortunately, or basic maths by the sound of it.
As @What A Waster asked, roughly what sea depth change would YOU expect then from centre to ring?
again like the sun question maybe 5 miles, 50 miles, 100 miles, you must have an idea, its just us that can't grasp it?

 

[payne]

I've never mentioned steep I've explained even the shallowest of gradients, even almost flat doesn't work.
You don't understand scale unfortunately, or basic maths by the sound of it.
As @What A Waster asked, roughly what sea depth change would YOU expect then from centre to ring?
again like the sun question maybe 5 miles, 50 miles, 100 miles, you must have an idea, its just us that can't grasp it?

he really loves detail.