sceptimatic

Global earth v concave earth.
« on: December 04, 2013, 12:53:34 PM »
All water runs back to the sea.
All sewer pipes run to the sea in a natural downward gradient.
How can this work on a global earth?

It stands to reason that the earth must be anything but a globe, because this cannot naturally happen on a globe.
Also, taking into accounts of people sizes, as in body frames. We tend to see people that are higher up the concave bowl or in a lower pressure environment, always appear to be smaller framed people and the heavier framed people tend to be at sea level, or down into the bowl towards the sea.

This may be a good way of working out just what the map of earth should really look like by looking at the people of actual countries around the concave earth.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2013, 01:25:00 PM »
I don't think that sewer pipes lead directly to the sea.  I think they go to a sewage treatment plant first.

sceptimatic

Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2013, 01:34:20 PM »
I don't think that sewer pipes lead directly to the sea.  I think they go to a sewage treatment plant first.
Correct, they do and guess where the sewage treatment plants are situated.
Close to the sea.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2013, 02:14:18 PM »
Then why are there ones in Chicago?

They aren't close to the sea.

sceptimatic

Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2013, 02:17:06 PM »
Then why are there ones in Chicago?

They aren't close to the sea.
Wherever they are, they are still on a gradient, so the effluent will flow to the sea, correct?

Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2013, 02:36:26 PM »
I know he deleted himself, but I'm curious, how does the idea of water flowing towards the sea, downwards towards sea level not work on a globular earth?

Thork

Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2013, 08:58:55 PM »
I know he deleted himself, but I'm curious, how does the idea of water flowing towards the sea, downwards towards sea level not work on a globular earth?
Well he's made a right mess of his OP. I suspect he's read something I've written before and rehashed it to make absoluely no sense.

A similar real thing that you can debate is how gradients work. A gradient is dx/dy and of course that gives you a straight edge along the bottom. ie a flat earth.



Now this becomes interesting when you consider the gradient of something very long and very shallow like the River Nile. What you find is that the gradient is less than the supposed curvature of the earth in some sections. IE the river is either flowing uphill, or gradients are flat earth mathematics and don't work on a round earth.
However they are used universally and never with any correction for earth's curvature in any application whatsoever.
The sharp-witted would probably deduce that therefore the earth must be flat and no one notices that they use this flat earth mathematics all the time.

You'll likely disagre with me, but food for thought at least, I'm sure you will agree.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2013, 01:26:19 AM »
Now if I get this correct, altitude is represented by the Y axis correct?
Then sea level would be represented by 0 on the Y axis.

Water always flows from a higher altitude to a lower altitude.

On RE, sea level follows the curve of the earth.  It would stand to reason that the X axis, which is 0 on the Y axis, would be curved also.  All vertical lines would start at the center of the earth and radiate outwards.

I will try to draw a picture if this would help with the imagery, need to download a decent program.

Thork

Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2013, 05:15:16 PM »
Now if I get this correct, altitude is represented by the Y axis correct?
Then sea level would be represented by 0 on the Y axis.

Water always flows from a higher altitude to a lower altitude.

On RE, sea level follows the curve of the earth.  It would stand to reason that the X axis, which is 0 on the Y axis, would be curved also.  All vertical lines would start at the center of the earth and radiate outwards.

I will try to draw a picture if this would help with the imagery, need to download a decent program.
You are backing my point. The x axis should be curved. But it never is in these calculations. Gradient is based on straight edged triangles. Its flat earth mathematics.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9039
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2013, 06:01:29 PM »
Flat Earth mathematics is not a thing, it is Euclidean geometry. Surveyors routinely correct for the curvature of the Earth, so I am not sure why you say it is never accounted for.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Thork

Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2013, 06:05:53 PM »
Flat Earth mathematics is not a thing, it is Euclidean geometry.
Gradient is a flat earth calculation, whatever you care to call it.

Surveyors routinely correct for the curvature of the Earth, so I am not sure why you say it is never accounted for.
They do not correct for earth's curvature when stating gradients. Of that you can be sure. Why are you trying to red herring my observation away?

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9039
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2013, 06:21:52 PM »
A plane survey would not a geodetic survey would.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2013, 09:09:10 PM »
Now if I get this correct, altitude is represented by the Y axis correct?
Then sea level would be represented by 0 on the Y axis.

Water always flows from a higher altitude to a lower altitude.

On RE, sea level follows the curve of the earth.  It would stand to reason that the X axis, which is 0 on the Y axis, would be curved also.  All vertical lines would start at the center of the earth and radiate outwards.

I will try to draw a picture if this would help with the imagery, need to download a decent program.
You are backing my point. The x axis should be curved. But it never is in these calculations. Gradient is based on straight edged triangles. Its flat earth mathematics.

That is because the measurement is Feet above sea level. The X axis does not need to be curved to work on a curved surface. 

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2013, 04:34:25 PM »
Now this becomes interesting when you consider the gradient of something very long and very shallow like the River Nile. What you find is that the gradient is less than the supposed curvature of the earth in some sections. IE the river is either flowing uphill, or gradients are flat earth mathematics and don't work on a round earth.

There's a few things that spring to mind,


The first is that it's not impossible for water to flow uphill for short distances due to the pressure of water behind. In a tube you can get it to go to quite some height as long as it's lower than the point of input.

The second is that the river bed could get higher whilst the river simply gets shallower and wider allowing the same volume of water through. I don't know much about the Nile but I know this happens in many English rivers where they come across different rock formations.

*

Offline Scientific Method

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Rowbotham, Voliva etc proved the earth to be round
    • View Profile
Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2013, 09:40:38 PM »
Spank, bj covered it exactly; the y-axis is height above sea level. Some people are just too dense to figure out what this means, so I'll explain as best I can:

According to Wikipedia's Nile page, the primary source for the Nile originates at 8,858ft. Logically, the end is at 0ft, as it runs to the sea. Both of these altitudes are relative to mean sea level, which is a constant distance from the centre of the earth (well, almost, there are some variations due to the equatorial bulge, and local variances in gravity, but we'll use the simpler explanation for now). What does this mean? For every mile the Nile travels, it gets (on average) 2ft closer to the centre of the earth. To reiterate, this change is not relative to a straight line, it is relative to a curve. Is that really so hard to understand?? I don't get why so many people seem to struggle with something so simple... ???
Look out your window. Better yet, get up and go outside for a while.

Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2013, 11:00:18 PM »
I know he deleted himself, but I'm curious, how does the idea of water flowing towards the sea, downwards towards sea level not work on a globular earth?

Sceptimatic deleted himself?
Why? He's the only one who I really pay attention to on these boards.

Thork

Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2013, 11:48:21 PM »
I know he deleted himself, but I'm curious, how does the idea of water flowing towards the sea, downwards towards sea level not work on a globular earth?

Sceptimatic deleted himself?
Why? He's the only one who I really pay attention to on these boards.
Who knows why?

The real question is when there are a plethora of sane and interesting people who don't make things up off the top of their heads on these boards, why is Sceptimatic the only person you pay attention to?

Re: Global earth v concave earth.
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2013, 08:53:22 AM »
I know he deleted himself, but I'm curious, how does the idea of water flowing towards the sea, downwards towards sea level not work on a globular earth?

Sceptimatic deleted himself?
Why? He's the only one who I really pay attention to on these boards.
Who knows why?

The real question is when there are a plethora of sane and interesting people who don't make things up off the top of their heads on these boards, why is Sceptimatic the only person you pay attention to?

Because his theory of Flat Earth is by far the most interesting interpretation of dome cosmology I've seen. He at least puts work into it, and presents his theories.
Lord Steven Christ or someone like that might just say theres ice up there w/ glass. Sceptimatic explores various dome concepts and puts it out for the world to see.

I rather liked his ideas about ice changing states up top.

I wanted to know what he thinks about the Hebrew concept of Earth.