Recent Posts

1
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'
2
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
3
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.
4
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.
5
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.
6
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.     
7
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?
8
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.
9
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.

10
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.