Offline SimonC

  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 07:21:36 PM »
I hope this post is in the right section. My sincere apologies if not.
Something struck me recently and am sure this must have been debated in the past. But the Congo and the Nile both cross the equator (the Congo twice). And generally speaking (at face value) there is something that does not seem quite right with this. And trying to visualise it from a round earth perspective just doesn't seem logical. If we imagine  people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?
Have I missed something here or does this in fact lend itself further to the flat earth theory?

*

Online Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 3636
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2022, 07:23:52 PM »
Never heard this one before.  ::)
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Offline SimonC

  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2022, 07:43:34 PM »
Is that a good thing (for Flat Earth theory)? :-)

Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1279
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2022, 07:53:52 PM »
I hope this post is in the right section. My sincere apologies if not.
Something struck me recently and am sure this must have been debated in the past. But the Congo and the Nile both cross the equator (the Congo twice). And generally speaking (at face value) there is something that does not seem quite right with this. And trying to visualise it from a round earth perspective just doesn't seem logical. If we imagine  people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?
Have I missed something here or does this in fact lend itself further to the flat earth theory?


The flow of rivers will generally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill, because of gravity. The Nile isn't defying gravity, it's flowing downhill or in the direction of the path of least resistance.

I think your misconception might be that you see the relationship between the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere in the same way that you see the relationship between up and down -- to someone living in the southern hemisphere, people living in the northern hemisphere would be "hanging upside down".       
 

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 775
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2022, 07:59:07 PM »
If we imagine  people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?

Gravity acts perpendicular to the earth's surface - it feels the same wherever you are on earth, with the only small exception being that it feels a very small bit less powerful at the equator due to the earth's rotation - fun fact! Downhill is downhill - if you move from a point that is higher than another point, with the datum being mean sea level, then you are moving 'downhill', regardless of latitude.

Offline SimonC

  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2022, 08:03:56 PM »
I hope this post is in the right section. My sincere apologies if not.
Something struck me recently and am sure this must have been debated in the past. But the Congo and the Nile both cross the equator (the Congo twice). And generally speaking (at face value) there is something that does not seem quite right with this. And trying to visualise it from a round earth perspective just doesn't seem logical. If we imagine  people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?
Have I missed something here or does this in fact lend itself further to the flat earth theory?





The flow of rivers will generally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill, because of gravity. The Nile isn't defying gravity, it's flowing downhill or in the direction of the path of least resistance.

I think your misconception might be that you see the relationship between the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere in the same way that you see the relationship between up and down -- to someone living in the southern hemisphere, people living in the northern hemisphere would be "hanging upside down".       

Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 775
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2022, 08:07:37 PM »
Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?

If the source of the river at Sydney was at a higher elevation than the end of the river in the Med, then yes, it would flow that way.

Offline SimonC

  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2022, 08:14:33 PM »
Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?

If the source of the river at Sydney was at a higher elevation than the end of the river in the Med, then yes, it would flow that way.



But it is not likely that the source will be higher on a globe earth - if we use the globe (north to south0 as height). height is a figure commonly used as 'above sea level'. I get what you say but can you picture it? A river flowing 4 or 5000 miles in a northerly direction? It only happens with 2 main rivers but the fact it does does make one think.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 775
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2022, 08:28:57 PM »

But it is not likely that the source will be higher on a globe earth - if we use the globe (north to south0 as height). height is a figure commonly used as 'above sea level'. I get what you say but can you picture it? A river flowing 4 or 5000 miles in a northerly direction? It only happens with 2 main rivers but the fact it does does make one think.

Well, that's pretty much what the Nile is, right? The equator only means anything in the context of the rotation of the earth - if you forget about the rotation, it could be just an arbitrary line. Indeed, if western civilisation had begun in the Southern Hemisphere, our maps would probably be orientated the other way round, with the antarctic at the top of the map. If that was the case, would you take issue with rivers flowing in a southerly direction?

Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1279
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2022, 08:39:22 PM »
Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?

If the source of the river at Sydney was at a higher elevation than the end of the river in the Med, then yes, it would flow that way.



But it is not likely that the source will be higher on a globe earth - if we use the globe (north to south0 as height). height is a figure commonly used as 'above sea level'. I get what you say but can you picture it? A river flowing 4 or 5000 miles in a northerly direction? It only happens with 2 main rivers but the fact it does does make one think.


Gravitation force is the same all the way around our globe earth, no matter if you are in the northern or southern hemisphere. Gravity behaves the same no matter your location.

Can you clarify the assumption you are using of "north and south as height"?   
« Last Edit: November 20, 2022, 08:40:59 PM by GoldCashew »

Offline SimonC

  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2022, 08:54:50 PM »
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3445
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2022, 09:16:34 PM »
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.

Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.

Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1279
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2022, 09:22:12 PM »
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)


Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.

If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?
 
« Last Edit: November 20, 2022, 09:48:55 PM by GoldCashew »

Offline SimonC

  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2022, 11:07:28 PM »
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.

Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.

I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?

Offline SimonC

  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2022, 11:13:35 PM »
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)




Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.

If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?

If you dug such a trench in Sydney and it fell gradually 10 feet over (as an example) 6,000 miles to say Norway I understand what you say but I cannot imagine it It would be beyond ridiculous. Mainly because your  trench would have to be constructed on a perfectly level surface. But that will never happen. You will go through mountain ranges, and jungles and various other forms of topography. But if you believe the earth is a globe then maybe you have to believe that. However of course it would work if the earth was flat.

Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1279
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2022, 11:29:29 PM »
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)




Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.

If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?

If you dug such a trench in Sydney and it fell gradually 10 feet over (as an example) 6,000 miles to say Norway I understand what you say but I cannot imagine it It would be beyond ridiculous. Mainly because your  trench would have to be constructed on a perfectly level surface. But that will never happen. You will go through mountain ranges, and jungles and various other forms of topography. But if you believe the earth is a globe then maybe you have to believe that. However of course it would work if the earth was flat.



I think that you are getting hung up on a mistaken notion that land masses in the southern hemisphere of our globe earth are lower in height than land masses in the northern hemisphere and so therefore water must flow from "north" to "south" and anything other than that would be hard to imagine.     Rivers don't know what humans have labeled "northern" or "southern" on globe maps; rivers simply flow in the direction or path of least resistance due to gravity.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2022, 12:11:49 AM by GoldCashew »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7023
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2022, 01:11:52 AM »
I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Except that scenario doesn't exist on a globe earth.  Gravity causes down to be towards the center of the earth, regardless of where you are on the globe.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3445
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2022, 03:00:27 AM »
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.

Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.

I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?

Here's how it works on a Globe Earth:


Offline SimonC

  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2022, 09:21:52 AM »
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)




Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.

If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?

If you dug such a trench in Sydney and it fell gradually 10 feet over (as an example) 6,000 miles to say Norway I understand what you say but I cannot imagine it It would be beyond ridiculous. Mainly because your  trench would have to be constructed on a perfectly level surface. But that will never happen. You will go through mountain ranges, and jungles and various other forms of topography. But if you believe the earth is a globe then maybe you have to believe that. However of course it would work if the earth was flat.



I think that you are getting hung up on a mistaken notion that land masses in the southern hemisphere of our globe earth are lower in height than land masses in the northern hemisphere and so therefore water must flow from "north" to "south" and anything other than that would be hard to imagine.     Rivers don't know what humans have labeled "northern" or "southern" on globe maps; rivers simply flow in the direction or path of least resistance due to gravity.

Only if the earth was a globe would I be getting hung up on the above. And perhaps too many people believe in gravity per se. Its a theory only and not even a very good one. Its a convenient way to explain something that we dont understand. Objects fall to earth due to them being heavier than air.

Offline SimonC

  • *
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2022, 09:23:08 AM »
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.

Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.

I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?

Here's how it works on a Globe Earth:



Nice image. But thats all it is. A cartoon.