[Ghost of V]

Wouldn't mountains be considered a bulge in RET?

Relative to the size of the planet, mountains are miniscule variations in the surface. If the Earth was a sphere and the size of an 8 ball, you would not be able to feel the mountains on the surface.

This is an interesting point. Regardless, it would still make it an imperfect sphere.

[Rushy]

This is an interesting point. Regardless, it would still make it an imperfect sphere.

I never said it was a perfect sphere, mainly because it is something that hasn't even been shown to physically exist.

[Rama Set]

The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
The Earth has a slight bulge around its equator due to its rotation.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Equatorial_bulge.html

This isn't correct, even if RET were true. If the Earth were a sphere, its rotational velocity is not high enough to create a oceanic bulge that could classify it as something other than a sphere. While it is not a perfect sphere, it is closer to the defined properties of a sphere than it is to the defined properties of an oblate spheroid. It's like taking 0.3 and saying it would be better to round it to 1 than 0.

It is not remotely incorrect to call the Earth an oblate spheroid. Although it's oblateness is minuscule it is measurable so why ignore it?

[Rama Set]

This is an interesting point. Regardless, it would still make it an imperfect sphere.

I never said it was a perfect sphere, mainly because it is something that hasn't even been shown to physically exist.

All evidence to the contrary.

[Rushy]

Although it's oblateness is minuscule it is measurable so why ignore it?

Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?

[Ghost of V]

This whole argument is irrelevant. The Earth is not an oblate spheroid or a perfect sphere. It is flat. Period. Heaps of evidence prove this.

[Rama Set]

This whole argument is irrelevant. The Earth is not an oblate spheroid or a perfect sphere. It is flat. Period. Heaps of evidence prove this.

Only of evidence means something other than evidence. Does it?

[Rushy]

Rama, I am genuinely curious as to your answer to my earlier question is. It would give me deep insight on why you think certain things.

[Rama Set]

Rama, I am genuinely curious as to your answer to my earlier question is. It would give me deep insight on why you think certain things.

Although it's oblateness is minuscule it is measurable so why ignore it?

Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?

Technically, no it does not. Analyze away!

[Pete Svarrior]

Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?

Technically, no it does not. Analyze away!

Technically, yes, it does, as there are no non-zero infinitesimals in the set of real numbers. If you abandoned the default assumption of real numbers, you're no longer being technically correct.

[Rama Set]

Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?

Technically, no it does not. Analyze away!

Technically, yes, it does, as there are no non-zero infinitesimals in the set of real numbers. If you abandoned the default assumption of real numbers, you're no longer being technically correct.

Thank you. To be honest I suspected that was the case but was too lazy to look it up at the time. I can't wait to see how Rushy equates this with the oblateness of the Earth. We all know he can do it, but will it be spiteful pedantry or not?  Stay tuned!

[Rushy]

Thank you. To be honest I suspected that was the case but was too lazy to look it up at the time. I can't wait to see how Rushy equates this with the oblateness of the Earth. We all know he can do it, but will it be spiteful pedantry or not?  Stay tuned!

I was just curious on how and why you didn't understand what I was saying, but now I do. I had no intention of explaining anything to you. That question was purely for my own sake.

[Rama Set]

Thank you. To be honest I suspected that was the case but was too lazy to look it up at the time. I can't wait to see how Rushy equates this with the oblateness of the Earth. We all know he can do it, but will it be spiteful pedantry or not?  Stay tuned!

I was just curious on how and why you didn't understand what I was saying, but now I do. I had no intention of explaining anything to you. That question was purely for my own sake.

Rushy.

[AMann]

The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
The Earth has a slight bulge around its equator due to its rotation.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Equatorial_bulge.html

This isn't correct, even if RET were true. If the Earth were a sphere, its rotational velocity is not high enough to create a oceanic bulge that could classify it as something other than a sphere. While it is not a perfect sphere, it is closer to the defined properties of a sphere than it is to the defined properties of an oblate spheroid. It's like taking 0.3 and saying it would be better to round it to 1 than 0.

Measurements point to it being true.
So... who to believe? Someone who simply cannot think or a scientific measurement? I choose the scientific measurement.

Whether or not the bulge is significant or not, it is not a perfect sphere. A difference of 42 kms is pretty small on a planetary scale, but certainly seems large enough if you were to go out and travel 42 kms.

Your analogy of rounding 0.3 to 1 instead of to 0 is an inaccurate analogy.
An oblate spheroid is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle whose plane bisects it.
Because the difference is only 42 kms does not mean that the definition is moot.

[AMann]

This whole argument is irrelevant. The Earth is not an oblate spheroid or a perfect sphere. It is flat. Period. Heaps of evidence prove this.

And yet, I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that can stand up to any scrutiny.
I have however seen many that show a round Earth, including personal experience.

Denying evidence does not make the evidence nonexistent.

[AMann]

Although it's oblateness is minuscule it is measurable so why ignore it?

Do you believe that 0.9999 repeating equals 1?

Yes, 0.9999 repeating equals 1... there are several mathematical proofs to show this

[Rushy]

Measurements point to it being true.
So... who to believe? Someone who simply cannot think or a scientific measurement? I choose the scientific measurement.

Whether or not the bulge is significant or not, it is not a perfect sphere. A difference of 42 kms is pretty small on a planetary scale, but certainly seems large enough if you were to go out and travel 42 kms.

Your analogy of rounding 0.3 to 1 instead of to 0 is an inaccurate analogy.
An oblate spheroid is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle whose plane bisects it.
Because the difference is only 42 kms does not mean that the definition is moot.

Perhaps if you learn more about RET, you'll understand why it isn't true. I suggest going over more geodesy topics before engaging me again; I won't repeat myself ad infinitum only to have you argue the same incorrect point in a likewise manner.

[aninterestedparty]

Measurements point to it being true.
So... who to believe? Someone who simply cannot think or a scientific measurement? I choose the scientific measurement.

Whether or not the bulge is significant or not, it is not a perfect sphere. A difference of 42 kms is pretty small on a planetary scale, but certainly seems large enough if you were to go out and travel 42 kms.

Your analogy of rounding 0.3 to 1 instead of to 0 is an inaccurate analogy.
An oblate spheroid is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle whose plane bisects it.
Because the difference is only 42 kms does not mean that the definition is moot.

Perhaps if you learn more about RET, you'll understand why it isn't true. I suggest going over more geodesy topics before engaging me again; I won't repeat myself ad infinitum only to have you argue the same incorrect point in a likewise manner.

I am noticing a pattern amongst FE'ers, the inability to point out much evidence, but purely to redirect someone to another source of evidence. Either admit that you don't know, or take the trouble to enlighten us. Claiming that you won't repeat yourself repeatedly is not an excuse to leave a discussion. If you don't want to repeat yourself ad infinitum, don't post.

[Pete Svarrior]

Actually, you can't force anyone to repeat themselves ad nauseam just because you're too lazy to run a simple search. You're welcome to complain about it and tell people they're lazy, but that's likely to make them even more averse to your laziness.

[aninterestedparty]

Excuse my ignorance. the reason i made that point was that irushwithscvs posted a recommendation to seek other knowledge elsewhere. Wherever i go to seek extra knowledge, i am bombarded with absolutely nothing suggesting that anyone outside a blind fringe group ( no offence ) has even considered that the earth is flat.
I respectfully request that you keep my nationality out of this pizaaplanet.
Australians are just as intelligent and respectable as Americans