Oceans in RET

One piece of evidence that you Round Earthers often like to flaunt as supporting your theory is the way that the measured value of g varies from place to place around the surface of the Earth. I will now show how this is, in fact, in direct opposition to the ridiculous hypothesis that the Earth is round, and can only be properly explained by Flat Earth Theory.

It is a natural state of affairs that the Universe will always tend towards its lowest energy state. In order for the world's oceans to achieve their lowest possible energy state, the measured value of g should be the same at every point corresponding to the surface of the ocean, if indeed they are being held in place by gravitation and not acceleration. If it is higher in some places than in others, the water should flow from the places with low values of g to those with higher values until g is equal everywhere at the surface. This is basic physics; the water is more weakly attracted where g is lower and will move to where gravitation is stronger.

Now, this table indicates that the measured value of g in Singapore is just 9.781 m s^-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s^-2. This is a difference of nearly 0.4%. Were the oceans truly bound to the surface of the Earth gravitationally, those nearer the Equator should be seeking out the lower energy states that exist in the polar regions and accumulating there. Coastal cities such as Helsinki and Copenhagen would be completely flooded, while there would be much more dry land in Oceania and Central America.

Why is this not the case? The answer, of course, is simple. The Earth is flat, and these oceans are not impressed to move because the acceleration keeping them in place is the same everywhere. The simple fact that the oceans are positioned where they are, ladies and gentlemen, is thus damning evidence that there exists a Conspiracy, and that the Conspiracy has succeeded in keeping the layman so ignorant to the true shape of the Earth that he believes the variance in g across the Earth's surface to be supportive of his beliefs, rather than in total contradiction to them.

The fact that this thread is even necessary fills my heart with despair for the human condition. Hopefully, this is comprehensive enough for even the most inbred RE'er to grasp.

The fact that this thread is even necessary fills my heart with despair for the human condition. Hopefully, this is comprehensive enough for even the most inbred RE'er to grasp.

It's not, I didn't comprehend it.  To be fair though, I only skimmed it.  I guess that's my brainwashed subconscious blocking me from thinking outside my box.  Oh well what can you do?  You can't raze Rome in a day.

I wonder how fast flows over several thousand kilometres when there's a force of a thousandth of a g acting on it? Especially when you've got the Moon, air pressure and ocean currents stirring everything around.

Besides, the oceans are hardly static; what makes you think they're going to be settled in their lowest energy state?

I wonder how fast flows over several thousand kilometres when there's a force of a thousandth of a g acting on it? Especially when you've got the Moon, air pressure and ocean currents stirring everything around.

Besides, the oceans are hardly static; what makes you think they're going to be settled in their lowest energy state?

along with underwater volcanis eruptions, landslides, earthquakes, sea trafic and storms

Quote from: NTheGreat on April 17, 2009, 11:50:07 PM

I wonder how fast flows over several thousand kilometres when there's a force of a thousandth of a g acting on it? Especially when you've got the Moon, air pressure and ocean currents stirring everything around.

Besides, the oceans are hardly static; what makes you think they're going to be settled in their lowest energy state?

along with underwater volcanis eruptions, landslides, earthquakes, sea trafic and storms

Please stop posting. You actually think boats and the wind affect the ocean? GTFO of my Internet, you cretin!

I wonder how fast flows over several thousand kilometres when there's a force of a thousandth of a g acting on it? Especially when you've got the Moon, air pressure and ocean currents stirring everything around.

According to RET, they've had four billion years to settle. Why haven't they?

Besides, the oceans are hardly static; what makes you think they're going to be settled in their lowest energy state?

For that to be a valid argument, they would need to be varying regularly by more than their extremes differ. However, we don't regularly see coastal cities becoming alternately flooded and unflooded by changing sea levels. With their current level of stability, they should be differently positioned.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm

A paper relating the moon's interaction with the earth and tides. 

Quote from: NTheGreat on April 17, 2009, 11:50:07 PM

I wonder how fast flows over several thousand kilometres when there's a force of a thousandth of a g acting on it? Especially when you've got the Moon, air pressure and ocean currents stirring everything around.

According to RET, they've had four billion years to settle. Why haven't they?

Please bear in mind that the Earth isn't perfectly spherical.

Now, this table indicates that the measured value of g in Singapore is just 9.781 m s^-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s^-2. This is a difference of nearly 0.4%.

How do you account for this difference in FET, where 'gravity' is actually an upwards acceleration of a flat plane.  Wouldn't these measurements be showing different parts of a solid flat disc accelerating at differing rates?

I'm not even going to go into the whole ocean thing, for they are in constant movement on the earth, and for a variety of reasons, differences in gravity being the least of them, and as was mentioned, the earth isn't a perfect sphere by any stretch.

FAQ.

Quote from: lupey on April 18, 2009, 03:01:35 AM

Quote from: NTheGreat on April 17, 2009, 11:50:07 PM

I wonder how fast flows over several thousand kilometres when there's a force of a thousandth of a g acting on it? Especially when you've got the Moon, air pressure and ocean currents stirring everything around.

Besides, the oceans are hardly static; what makes you think they're going to be settled in their lowest energy state?

along with underwater volcanis eruptions, landslides, earthquakes, sea trafic and storms

Please stop posting. You actually think boats and the wind affect the ocean? GTFO of my Internet, you cretin!

Well, you see, the wind does affect the oceans. It's called "hurricanes."

According to RET, they've had four billion years to settle. Why haven't they?

Not four billion years. If you'd bother to pick up a basic science textbook you'd learn that the Earth at its inception was a lot of ugly molten rock and lava spewing and shifting with the tectonic plates and et cetera. Eventually, with comets and meteorite hits, the Earth developed large oceans and lost those oceans with an asteroid that dislodged a significant chunk of the Earth. This dust eventually settled into the moon. We have less oceans now, but let me assure you that since (about 1.3 billion years) then the Earth has been anything but static. Further meteor-strikes (the latest about 65 million years ago) and tectonic movements have kept the Earth in a constant state of flux - the gravitational effects of the moon and the effects of weather have further shifted the oceans about.

Throw in a margin of error from human-made instruments and a difference of .03 meters per second squared is hardly damning evidence.

You underestimate the vastness of oceans. A hurricane to an ocean is a breeze to us.

You underestimate the vastness of oceans. A hurricane to an ocean is a breeze to us.

Well, right and wrong. It's small relative to the size of an ocean but still has an effect, especially in terms of generating waves, altering currents in its immediate vicinity, et cetera.

On the same token, the vastness of the ocean means that different parts of it will - *gasp* - behave differently. Lodge in there the truth that in RET, the Earth is not perfectly spherical, and what you have is an ocean which will follow the path of least resistance according to the necessary specifications of the elliptical sphere. Robosteve's postulate would be more correct (not absolutely) if the Earth were a perfect sphere. It is not. It is almost perfect, and these measurements are completely appropriate to define that.

Notwithstanding human manipulations of coastlines through dikes, dams, levees, and natural inclinations of topographical features, Helsinki and Singapore would not necessarily be flooded, and water won't flow to the path of least resistance if there is no reasonable path for it to even get there.

I challenege RET to explain why my front lawn isn't a marsh.

I challenege RET to explain why my front lawn isn't a marsh.

You must be joking. The answer is evident using other information present in this thread.

Your front-lawn is not a marsh because water follows the path of least resistance or at least as close to that as is manageable. Likely, your present position is above the sea-level, and gravity pulls the water away from your lawn. Plus, the effects of evaporation most likely prevent your lawn from deriving marshy qualities in whatever temperate zone you inhabit.

Assuming that your present position is at or below sea level, then likely there are topographical features at our around you or on a much larger scale that prevent seas, oceans, and rivers from seeping water into your lawn.

If your lawn is not guarded by these positions of high elevation or is unaffected by evaporation, then it is a work of fiction.

According to RET, they've had four billion years to settle. Why haven't they?

Same reason they're not settled on a FE model as well, I expect.

Thinking about it,

In order for the world's oceans to achieve their lowest possible energy state, the measured value of g should be the same at every point corresponding to the surface of the ocean

is daft in the first place. If we take a swimming pool and surround the base of one end in lead, then all the water's not going to pile up around that end. It's going to end up flat, as that's the lowest energy state. The ocean isn't going to make mountains when it can expend energy to lay flat.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm

A paper relating the moon's interaction with the earth and tides. 

And? This should also influence the measured value of g significantly if it were the reason for the oceans being in such a strange position.

How do you account for this difference in FET, where 'gravity' is actually an upwards acceleration of a flat plane.  Wouldn't these measurements be showing different parts of a solid flat disc accelerating at differing rates?

This is caused by the gravitation of the stars. Since the stars are always rotating, there's nothing stable for the oceans to gravitate towards.

So you come out with some faily decent (if badly written) stuff about measurable gravity on oceans, and then uses as your evidence measurements taken in cities.

If I were you, I wouldn't be telling other people their posts are badly written. Also, they are coastal cities, dipshit. Meaning they are right beside oceans.

Not four billion years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth#Origin_of_the_oceans_and_atmosphere

See the (cited) sentence which states that "recent evidence suggests that the oceans may have begun forming by 4.2 billion years ago".

We have less oceans now, but let me assure you that since (about 1.3 billion years) then the Earth has been anything but static. Further meteor-strikes (the latest about 65 million years ago) and tectonic movements have kept the Earth in a constant state of flux - the gravitational effects of the moon and the effects of weather have further shifted the oceans about.

Did you even read my post, or was it too complicated for you? I never said the oceans weren't unstable, I said that in order for this to be explained by their instability, they would have to be constantly varying by more than the observed discrepancy - otherwise one would expect them to at least be closer to their lowest energy state and varying about that. Rather, they are 0.4% away from their lowest energy state, and varying about that. Any suggestions as to why?

Throw in a margin of error from human-made instruments and a difference of .03 meters per second squared is hardly damning evidence.

Didn't you say something about being a physicist? Those values are given to four significant figures, and they have a significant difference in the third figure. Human error is irrelevant.

On the same token, the vastness of the ocean means that different parts of it will - *gasp* - behave differently. Lodge in there the truth that in RET, the Earth is not perfectly spherical, and what you have is an ocean which will follow the path of least resistance according to the necessary specifications of the elliptical sphere. Robosteve's postulate would be more correct (not absolutely) if the Earth were a perfect sphere. It is not. It is almost perfect, and these measurements are completely appropriate to define that.

Notwithstanding human manipulations of coastlines through dikes, dams, levees, and natural inclinations of topographical features, Helsinki and Singapore would not necessarily be flooded, and water won't flow to the path of least resistance if there is no reasonable path for it to even get there.

How does the Earth not being a perfect sphere (according to RET) make the oceans any less likely to settle into their lowest energy state? Also, I'm pretty sure the world's oceans are connected.

If we take a swimming pool and surround the base of one end in lead, then all the water's not going to pile up around that end.

Yes it is. Just not significantly so, as a bit of lead is not enough to create a significant difference in g.

The ocean isn't going to make mountains when it can expend energy to lay flat.

I appreciate your concession that the surfaces of the Earth's oceans are indeed flat.

How does the Earth not being a perfect sphere (according to RET) make the oceans any less likely to settle into their lowest energy state? Also, I'm pretty sure the world's oceans are connected.

Equatorial areas of ocean will in theory be slightly higher than other areas, as the gravitational pull will be slightly less.

Quote from: A Physicist on April 18, 2009, 09:43:18 AM

Not four billion years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth#Origin_of_the_oceans_and_atmosphere

See the (cited) sentence which states that "recent evidence suggests that the oceans may have begun forming by 4.2 billion years ago".

Fair enough, I could have put it a little better. What I meant was that the Earth's oceans haven't been stable or anything near stable for 4.2 billion years. They could have started forming, definitely, but not in an environment conducive to balance.

Quote from: A Physicist on April 18, 2009, 09:43:18 AM

We have less oceans now, but let me assure you that since (about 1.3 billion years) then the Earth has been anything but static. Further meteor-strikes (the latest about 65 million years ago) and tectonic movements have kept the Earth in a constant state of flux - the gravitational effects of the moon and the effects of weather have further shifted the oceans about.

Did you even read my post, or was it too complicated for you? I never said the oceans weren't unstable, I said that in order for this to be explained by their instability, they would have to be constantly varying by more than the observed discrepancy - otherwise one would expect them to at least be closer to their lowest energy state and varying about that. Rather, they are 0.4% away from their lowest energy state, and varying about that. Any suggestions as to why?

No, the post wasn't too complicated, but thank you for your concern.

As a matter of fact, the oceans are constantly varying. As I and many other described earlier in the thread, there are multiple effects on the ocean and it's stability. Since we're discussing round earth theory right now, we need to consider all the effects of round earth theory. The moon's impact on the ocean is incredible - it determines tides the world over. Therefore, the ocean is in a constant state of flux. Add in momentum and the pendulum effect, and you shall find that it is rather difficult for the ocean to "settle down" in an agreeable way. 0.4% away from its lowest energy state is nothing - the kinetic energy imposed by outside forces does more than enough to balance this out.

Quote from: A Physicist on April 18, 2009, 09:43:18 AM

Throw in a margin of error from human-made instruments and a difference of .03 meters per second squared is hardly damning evidence.

Didn't you say something about being a physicist? Those values are given to four significant figures, and they have a significant difference in the third figure. Human error is irrelevant.

I admit that, here, you have something of a point. Even with the four significant figures, however, the instruments themselves are not perfect objects of precision. It is irrelevant, however, as the impact of other outside forces demonstrates how this is not damning evidence in a way that assumes perfection on all observing parties.

Quote from: A Physicist on April 18, 2009, 09:52:37 AM

On the same token, the vastness of the ocean means that different parts of it will - *gasp* - behave differently. Lodge in there the truth that in RET, the Earth is not perfectly spherical, and what you have is an ocean which will follow the path of least resistance according to the necessary specifications of the elliptical sphere. Robosteve's postulate would be more correct (not absolutely) if the Earth were a perfect sphere. It is not. It is almost perfect, and these measurements are completely appropriate to define that.

Notwithstanding human manipulations of coastlines through dikes, dams, levees, and natural inclinations of topographical features, Helsinki and Singapore would not necessarily be flooded, and water won't flow to the path of least resistance if there is no reasonable path for it to even get there.

How does the Earth not being a perfect sphere (according to RET) make the oceans any less likely to settle into their lowest energy state? Also, I'm pretty sure the world's oceans are connected.

I advise you to read my post. I never said - in fact I said specifically the opposite - that oceans are not now going to settle into their lowest energy state. The Earth not being a perfect sphere, however, has everything to do with how the oceans are going to distribute themselves once geography and gravity are taken into effect. The difference between an elliptical sphere and a perfect sphere is the difference between a perfect center of gravity and a derived center of gravity. Therefore, the perfect "lowest energy state" is only being perceived, and the assumptions you make are based upon more false assumptions. In the elliptical sphere, even if the oceans could settle perfectly, will settle according to the derived center of gravity. If you cut the Earth in half along the equator, you will find - shockingly - that both halves of the planet are of different mass, not in any big way but enough to account for this distance.

And, because I expect it, this does not disprove RET because (gravity should equalize it). Gravity, as you well know, takes a long time to work, and since the last great meteor strike (~65 million years ago) the Earth hasn't had the time to account for the difference (and probably won't before the next strike).

Equatorial areas of ocean will in theory be slightly higher than other areas, as the gravitational pull will be slightly less.

Which is precisely why they would be expected to move to the polar regions, where they are more strongly attracted.

Fair enough, I could have put it a little better. What I meant was that the Earth's oceans haven't been stable or anything near stable for 4.2 billion years. They could have started forming, definitely, but not in an environment conducive to balance.

Okay, I concede that. 1.3 billion years (the figure you gave in your previous post) is still a long time.

No, the post wasn't too complicated, but thank you for your concern.

As a matter of fact, the oceans are constantly varying. As I and many other described earlier in the thread, there are multiple effects on the ocean and it's stability. Since we're discussing round earth theory right now, we need to consider all the effects of round earth theory. The moon's impact on the ocean is incredible - it determines tides the world over. Therefore, the ocean is in a constant state of flux. Add in momentum and the pendulum effect, and you shall find that it is rather difficult for the ocean to "settle down" in an agreeable way. 0.4% away from its lowest energy state is nothing - the kinetic energy imposed by outside forces does more than enough to balance this out.

They are constantly varying, but not by as much as they are away from their lowest energy state. If they were, coastal cities all over the world would be alternately flooded and dry. The kinetic energy imposed by outside forces is thus shown to be not nearly enough to explain this discrepancy. 0.4% is enormous when speaking of a body of water with mass on the order of 10²¹ kg.

I admit that, here, you have something of a point. Even with the four significant figures, however, the instruments themselves are not perfect objects of precision. It is irrelevant, however, as the impact of other outside forces demonstrates how this is not damning evidence in a way that assumes perfection on all observing parties.

If the instruments cannot accurately measure to four significant figures, the measurements would never have been given to as many. That is, assuming the people who made the measurements are not totally incompetent.

I advise you to read my post. I never said - in fact I said specifically the opposite - that oceans are not now going to settle into their lowest energy state. The Earth not being a perfect sphere, however, has everything to do with how the oceans are going to distribute themselves once geography and gravity are taken into effect. The difference between an elliptical sphere and a perfect sphere is the difference between a perfect center of gravity and a derived center of gravity. Therefore, the perfect "lowest energy state" is only being perceived, and the assumptions you make are based upon more false assumptions. In the elliptical sphere, even if the oceans could settle perfectly, will settle according to the derived center of gravity. If you cut the Earth in half along the equator, you will find - shockingly - that both halves of the planet are of different mass, not in any big way but enough to account for this distance.

Were this true, it should be indicated in a more significant global variation of g. The fact remains that there is a weaker apparent attraction to the Earth at the Equator than near the poles, and unless the oceans were regularly varying by more than the amount that they are offset from their lowest energy state, they should have long ago shifted to appreciate this difference, if RET is correct.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on April 18, 2009, 10:27:46 AM

Equatorial areas of ocean will in theory be slightly higher than other areas, as the gravitational pull will be slightly less.

Which is precisely why they would be expected to move to the polar regions, where they are more strongly attracted.

Making the oceans uneven then?

Making the oceans uneven then?

"Uneven" in what sense?

different heights at different points?

different heights at different points?

Heights measured according to what?

Right beside the ocean is not on the ocean. Christ are you really this slow? Are you pressing the keys with a pen strapped to your forehead. FFS.

Are you suggesting that g varies by at least 0.2% within a few kilometres?

Any measurable difference due to variations in 'g' are infinitesimal. This will cause infinitesimal changes in the "height" of the oceans. Now put this infinitesimal variation against the variations introduced by the tides and you have a fairly good explanation for why the seas haven't evened out.

Do you understand what "infinitesimal" means, or do you just like to throw big words around and hope to sound intelligent?

Is that what I said? Your whole premise is flawed. Get out fail troll.

Well, the alternative is that your whole argument is irrelevant to my point.

Quote from: Robosteve on April 18, 2009, 11:21:50 AM

do you just like to throw big words around and hope to sound intelligent?

Yes.

Excellent, glad we cleared that up.

No. There's infinitesimal change in the hieight of the sea due to variations in 'g' at the oceans surface. The tides have a much bigger effect.

So you're suggesting that, over the few metres' vertical difference between high tide and low tide, there is a difference in g of more than 0.4%?

TBH, you started it by suggesting that using the g of coastal cities wasn't valid.

Is that what I said? Your 0.4% comes from comparing Singapore and Helsinki. For some reason you think this is relevant to your argument.

Well, Singapore and Helsinki are both at sea level. If the tidal variation in sea level is greater than that created by variations in g, then tidal fluctuations must take the ocean surface over a distance corresponding to a greater than 0.4% fluctuation in g.