Earthman

If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.

The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.   


If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.

The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Let's say that it rained for 400 days and 400 nights.  Everyone had to leave their homes because the earth's dry land was totally underwater, everywhere.  We were all in a 'water-world' to the max.  Now, since the earth's surface is totally covered by water, how would you measure the distance to the center of the earth?  It would be from sea level to the center of the earth.  Since the water seeks the gravity at the center of the earth that distance would be constant everywhere, and would be measured to the water's surface.  Now, start taking all the water away.  First the highest parts of the earth's surface would appear out of the seas, like the tip of Mt Everest.  Slowly the rest of the land starts to rise out of the sea.  Australia would come back slowly.  Visualize that scenario and think about what would happen between point A and B on the diagram as the water very slowly drains off and the land slowly starts to appear out of the sea again.
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Earthman

If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.

The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.

If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line.  I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?   

How may ways can one come up with the same results?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2018, 10:39:00 PM by Earthman »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.

The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.

If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line.  I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?   

How may ways can one come up with the same results?

Ok, I'm bored, so I'll respond. Regarding globe earth theory, curvature 'charts', calcs, etc., you do realize, that standing in the middle of the ocean trying to see, let's say a ship, the same distance away as the width of Australia, no landmass inbetween, just ocean, this "bulge" you can't seem to wrap your head around would be the same, roughly 191 miles?

Earthman

If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.

The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.

If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line.  I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?   

How may ways can one come up with the same results?

Ok, I'm bored, so I'll respond. Regarding globe earth theory, curvature 'charts', calcs, etc., you do realize, that standing in the middle of the ocean trying to see, let's say a ship, the same distance away as the width of Australia, no landmass inbetween, just ocean, this "bulge" you can't seem to wrap your head around would be the same, roughly 191 miles?

Yes on a Globe with a 3959 Mile radius, and Australia wouldn't exists because it's at Sea curve. Only a 1076' high landmass would exist and it would be a very small hill Island.

If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.

The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.

If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line.  I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?   

How may ways can one come up with the same results?
It is not a bulge, it is the shape of the spherical  earth.  Proven by measurements, distances, path of the sun, satellite dish angles etc.

Earthman

If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.

The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.

If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line.  I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?   

How may ways can one come up with the same results?
It is not a bulge, it is the shape of the spherical  earth.  Proven by measurements, distances, path of the sun, satellite dish angles etc.

Many Globe believers use the word "bulge", so I have done the same. I have not seen anyone prove Australia has 191 miles of curvature. Can you?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 12:28:06 AM by Earthman »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Many Globe believers us the word "bulge", so I have done the same.

Yes, they do. It’s unfortunate because it’s a useless and misguided concept in a globe model. I don’t know where it started, but I would hope it was only adopted because globe skeptics were using the term. Metabunk has it on its curvature graphic.

But it serves no purpose other than to incorrectly foster the impression of a “hill” or mound rising and falling between two points on a globe. And that’s how you depict it in your graphic. I can’t fault you for that if you are misled by the “bulge “ notion. Wish I could eradicate that concept.

I have a half-finished “Battle of the Bulge” video in work. I should finish that up so that I can present that any time I see a round or flat earthed perpetuating the misconception.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Yes, Bobby is right, 'bulge' is quite misleading as term in this topic. So forget that word for now. In the mean time, look over the attached and let us know if any light bulbs go off.


Earthman

Yes, Bobby is right, 'bulge' is quite misleading as term in this topic. So forget that word for now. In the mean time, look over the attached and let us know if any light bulbs go off.



Yup, I can see the bulge. But it sure doesn't measure 191 miles at center from the base of point A and B, according to a Curvature chart.

I also see a huge Australia. It would't look that big in a real picture.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 01:15:52 AM by Earthman »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Yes, Bobby is right, 'bulge' is quite misleading as term in this topic. So forget that word for now. In the mean time, look over the attached and let us know if any light bulbs go off.



Yup, I can see the bulge. But it sure doesn't measure 191 miles at center from the base of point A and B, according to a Curvature chart.

I also see a huge Australia. It would't look that big in a real picture.

In short, you don't understand globe earth curvature nor curvature on a basketball, but that's fine.

Australia is pretty big depending upon your POV. Do you have a real picture of what it should look like that you're willing to share?

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
I agree the 191 mile bulge is confusing and the term should be banned.  Think of it this way.  Take a perfect sphere with nothing on it.  Then cut it in half.  Then the bulge would be 3959 miles.  If you cut off just the top 3 quarters, then the bulge would be 2969 miles.  You can see that you can keep cutting the sphere into small and smaller sections.   It still would be hard to see any physical curvature of the earth, but you could still measure it indirectly.  That's the real problem.  On land in rolling hills or in the desert the average terrain may actually be mostly flat with only a curvature, on average.  Even at sea a bubble level would always be centered because vertical is always towards the center of the earth.  Those vertical lines would not be parallel. It's all confusing because man is so small and the earth is so large.  When you start observing the sun, moon, and stars you can start getting an appreciation to the true spherical nature of the earth.  Those that just go to work, watch TV, then go to sleep will never have any reason to care, one way or another, about the shape of the earth.     
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Earthman

I agree the 191 mile bulge is confusing and the term should be banned.  Think of it this way.  Take a perfect sphere with nothing on it.  Then cut it in half.  Then the bulge would be 3959 miles.  If you cut off just the top 3 quarters, then the bulge would be 2969 miles.  You can see that you can keep cutting the sphere into small and smaller sections.   It still would be hard to see any physical curvature of the earth, but you could still measure it indirectly.  That's the real problem.  On land in rolling hills or in the desert the average terrain may actually be mostly flat with only a curvature, on average.  Even at sea a bubble level would always be centered because vertical is always towards the center of the earth.  Those vertical lines would not be parallel. It's all confusing because man is so small and the earth is so large.  When you start observing the sun, moon, and stars you can start getting an appreciation to the true spherical nature of the earth.  Those that just go to work, watch TV, then go to sleep will never have any reason to care, one way or another, about the shape of the earth.   

None of what you have said makes any sense with most all of our current landmasses having coastal lands below the grade of your 3959 mile (sea curve) radius earth. It would all be flooded until the radius of the Earth was completed. Level, (horizontal) lands could not adjoin the coast on your world, unless you had a force field that held back the waters.

Our coast lands are below the grade of the curve of your 3959 mile radius earth and there is no force field holding back the waters.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 02:44:09 AM by Earthman »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
The force that holds back all the waters is gravity.  Of course you don't have to believe in gravity. You could start building an arc.  I really don't know how to explain it any better.  Buy yourself a nice globe and study it for a couple of hours and maybe you will understand.
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Earthman

The force that holds back all the waters is gravity.  Of course you don't have to believe in gravity. You could start building an arc.  I really don't know how to explain it any better.  Buy yourself a nice globe and study it for a couple of hours and maybe you will understand.

Yes, gravity (a theory that has never been proven) the fix for all things that can't be explained. It keeps coastal low-lying lands from (continuing a curve) being flooded by the dictated oceans curve.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 03:10:09 AM by Earthman »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
I agree the 191 mile bulge is confusing and the term should be banned.  Think of it this way.  Take a perfect sphere with nothing on it.  Then cut it in half.  Then the bulge would be 3959 miles.  If you cut off just the top 3 quarters, then the bulge would be 2969 miles.  You can see that you can keep cutting the sphere into small and smaller sections.   It still would be hard to see any physical curvature of the earth, but you could still measure it indirectly.  That's the real problem.  On land in rolling hills or in the desert the average terrain may actually be mostly flat with only a curvature, on average.  Even at sea a bubble level would always be centered because vertical is always towards the center of the earth.  Those vertical lines would not be parallel. It's all confusing because man is so small and the earth is so large.  When you start observing the sun, moon, and stars you can start getting an appreciation to the true spherical nature of the earth.  Those that just go to work, watch TV, then go to sleep will never have any reason to care, one way or another, about the shape of the earth.   

None of what you have said makes any sense with most all of our current landmasses having coastal lands below the grade of your 3959 mile (sea curve) radius earth. It would all be flooded until the radius of the Earth was completed. Level, (horizontal) lands could not adjoin the coast on your world, unless you had a force field that held back the waters.

Our coast lands are below the grade of your 3959 mile radius earth and there is no force field holding back the waters.

4 pages and you're still not getting it...hmmm.

In any case, let's start from the beginning. Some qualifying questions:

1) In Globe Earth Theory (GET, sometimes referred to as Round Earth Theory or RET) do you agree that the belief is that earth is spherical, kind of like a ball? Y/N
2) In GET do you agree that the belief is that, in this example, the landmass of Australia spherically conforms to a globe? (Think of smearing peanut butter onto a portion of a bowling ball in the shape of Australia - See how it's kinda rounded around a portion of the ball, that's what I mean by 'spherical conformity'.) Y/N
3) Let's say the surface of the bowling ball is all ocean and our smeared peanut butter is the Australian landmass. Y/N
4) Now, get a band saw and cut the just the area that has the peanut butter from the bowling ball. Like you're cutting a slice of bread from a loaf. Take that slice and lay it down on a table, peanut butter/Australia side up. With me? Y/N
5) Crouch down so you are eye level with the surface of the table. See that slice, how it's flat on the bottom, rounded on the top with the peanut butter smeared on it? Y/N
6) If you look at the middle of that slice, the distance from the bottom of the slice to the top of the slice is the dreaded 'bulge' we have all been speaking about.

If you answered 'N' to any of the questions either:
A) None of us are able to ever explain this to you
B) You have zero concept of what a sphere is, let alone the earth
C) Both

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
I really believe that everything is well understood.  There are those who just need to stir the pot and generate more posts.  The underlying objective is to NOT understand and let the 'sheeple' do the explaining.  As the old saying goes:  'A lion never looses sleep over the opinions of a sheep'
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.

The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.

I wonder if we can look at this a different way. Forget GPS, lasers, anything electronic, lets use 19th century equipment and techniques, so a surveyors level of some kind (e.g. a theodolite) and a couple of levelling rods (big poles with graduated markings similar to a ruler) and a few other bits and pieces.

Start at Shark bay on the west coast. Find a bit of flat ground near the sea and work out its elevation somehow, let's say 30' above sea level. This is our initial datum. Pick another point roughly 600' inland. Site the theodolite half way between the two and hold the rods vertically at the two chosen points. If the theodolite crosshairs are centred 4' above the base of the  first rod and 3' above the base of the second rod, then the second rod must be sitting on land 1' higher than the first, so we have established a new datum 31' above sea level and 600' closer to where we are headed.

Keep repeating this process, moving one rod at a time, leapfrogging to establish new datum positions and heights above sea level, ever closer to the target.

Eventually we end up at Marla and all being well we find we're 1076' above sea level.

So does it matter whether the Earth is flat or round? Here's a diagram...



In both cases, the theodolite crosshairs point to the same positions on the three levelling rods so all three positions A, B & C are the same height above sea level.

In other words, flat or round, doesn't matter, the heights still come out the same, if A os 30' above sea level, then so is B and so is C.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Notice in case B that the vertical rods are not parallel.  That's the evidence of the global earth.  Unfortunately, actually measuring the difference is difficult with simple equipment.  It is possible to get accurate measurements using laser technology but it seems to be difficult to get some people to believe the data.  There's lots of information on the internet, but what can you actually believe?  You can make any claims you wish and then claim any evidence to the contrary is 'fake'.  In the end the core objective to foster controversy.  You can monetize that.   
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!