Global earth V concave earth.

Orlando's model would at least remedy some contradictions with a totally flat earth. midnight sun and sun going straight down on the horizon would make more sense in concave "planet"...

no mention of Orlando Fergesun?
http://americandigest.org/a2-Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map.jpg

He proposed concave model very similar or identical to what you described as a possibility.

I like this idea, it's not too far off from my thinking, except I have an ice dome covering mine, plus mine does not have square edges.
The rest of it looks pretty good though.

It could only flow downhill to the sea on certain areas and I'm being kind in saying that, because in reality, the sea would not exist on a globe, because not only would it flow down hill, it would flow off into your space.

But you do not say why, not giving mechanisms. Under my understanding of my gravity and my space, water always flows downhill. Away from space.

If your gravity stops water flowing off into space, it would also stop it flowing altogether, you can't have it both ways.

Yes I can. Water flows 'down,' down is away from space, water flows downhill, towards the lowest point, away from space. Various pressures and procedures keep the water rising to land  liquid and gaseous forms and keep the water cycle going.

Because lots of things have changed since the early times.
The food was the fat of that land and the genetics were of that land.
It's all mixed, today, where people have acclimatised from other parts and bred into the various areas.

Food today is a mixture of imports from every part of the circle of land masses.

Please, be specific. What do you mean by 'early times?' 300 years ago? 1000 years ago?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2013, 03:09:01 PM

It could only flow downhill to the sea on certain areas and I'm being kind in saying that, because in reality, the sea would not exist on a globe, because not only would it flow down hill, it would flow off into your space.

But you do not say why, not giving mechanisms. Under my understanding of my gravity and my space, water always flows downhill. Away from space.

Quote

If your gravity stops water flowing off into space, it would also stop it flowing altogether, you can't have it both ways.

Yes I can. Water flows 'down,' down is away from space, water flows downhill, towards the lowest point, away from space. Various pressures and procedures keep the water rising to land  liquid and gaseous forms and keep the water cycle going.

Quote

Because lots of things have changed since the early times.
The food was the fat of that land and the genetics were of that land.
It's all mixed, today, where people have acclimatised from other parts and bred into the various areas.

Food today is a mixture of imports from every part of the circle of land masses.

Please, be specific. What do you mean by 'early times?' 300 years ago? 1000 years ago?

Ok, just to give you a quick and easy thought. Look at Thailand, Japanese, Chinese, etc...Years ago they were all basically tiny framed, but now, with more modern foods, shelter and drugs...you know what I mean, so let's not start pretending you don't.

This is what I'm talking about, so how about switching your head on instead of making out you can't grasp what I'm talking about.

Quote from: hewholikespie on December 07, 2013, 05:59:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2013, 03:09:01 PM

It could only flow downhill to the sea on certain areas and I'm being kind in saying that, because in reality, the sea would not exist on a globe, because not only would it flow down hill, it would flow off into your space.

But you do not say why, not giving mechanisms. Under my understanding of my gravity and my space, water always flows downhill. Away from space.

Quote

If your gravity stops water flowing off into space, it would also stop it flowing altogether, you can't have it both ways.

Yes I can. Water flows 'down,' down is away from space, water flows downhill, towards the lowest point, away from space. Various pressures and procedures keep the water rising to land  liquid and gaseous forms and keep the water cycle going.

Quote

Because lots of things have changed since the early times.
The food was the fat of that land and the genetics were of that land.
It's all mixed, today, where people have acclimatised from other parts and bred into the various areas.

Food today is a mixture of imports from every part of the circle of land masses.

Please, be specific. What do you mean by 'early times?' 300 years ago? 1000 years ago?

Ok, just to give you a quick and easy thought. Look at Thailand, Japanese, Chinese, etc...Years ago they were all basically tiny framed, but now, with more modern foods, shelter and drugs...you know what I mean, so let's not start pretending you don't.

This is what I'm talking about, so how about switching your head on instead of making out you can't grasp what I'm talking about.

And years ago, French and British and Spanish and Arabic and Nordic people were all basically tiny framed, but with modern foods, shelter, and drugs, they are now larger.

Also, by your logic, inland Chinese should be taller and thinner than shorter and stockier Coastal Chinese. An examination of their history does not bear this out.

But this is just the point. If we can find out about these people, we can maybe put them in order on the map so that it all fits around a concave earth.
The fact that some people in some countries are smaller than other in other parts, tells me that, some live lower down the concave earth and some live higher up.

Here's a few for instances and have a think about it.

The highest above sea level towns.
La Rinconada, Peru, over 16,000 feet above sea level.
Wenquan, China, over 16,000 feet above sea level.
El Aguila, Argentina, over 16,000 feet above sea level.
Colquechaca, Bolivia, over 15,000 feet above sea level.
Ukdungle, India, over 15,000 feet above sea level.


Now, of course you can say, "yes but they are up mountains, etc or whatever.
The point is, the people of these places are at one hell of a high elevation.

If the map was made to cater for where these places are against lower places in whatever parts of the countries, then a  concave map could be made to see if it works out for where these places could be on it, as opposed to the nonsensical globe.

It's one trillion percent not a globe, so this stuff should be looked at, which I am trying to.

But this is just the point. If we can find out about these people, we can maybe put them in order on the map so that it all fits around a concave earth.
The fact that some people in some countries are smaller than other in other parts, tells me that, some live lower down the concave earth and some live higher up.

Here's a few for instances and have a think about it.

The highest above sea level towns.
La Rinconada, Peru, over 16,000 feet above sea level.
Wenquan, China, over 16,000 feet above sea level.
El Aguila, Argentina, over 16,000 feet above sea level.
Colquechaca, Bolivia, over 15,000 feet above sea level.
Ukdungle, India, over 15,000 feet above sea level.


Now, of course you can say, "yes but they are up mountains, etc or whatever.
The point is, the people of these places are at one hell of a high elevation.

If the map was made to cater for where these places are against lower places in whatever parts of the countries, then a  concave map could be made to see if it works out for where these places could be on it, as opposed to the nonsensical globe.

It's one trillion percent not a globe, so this stuff should be looked at, which I am trying to.

These towns are all in the centers of continents, your theory is based on an morphological pattern you ASSUME should happen with no evidence, the world is a globe, and you're not actually trying to look at anything. Facts are anathema to you.

You also did not explain how gravity and a spherical earth prevent the water cycle from happening, or why water must flow into space on a round earth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2013, 05:33:49 PM

But this is just the point. If we can find out about these people, we can maybe put them in order on the map so that it all fits around a concave earth.
The fact that some people in some countries are smaller than other in other parts, tells me that, some live lower down the concave earth and some live higher up.

Here's a few for instances and have a think about it.

The highest above sea level towns.
La Rinconada, Peru, over 16,000 feet above sea level.
Wenquan, China, over 16,000 feet above sea level.
El Aguila, Argentina, over 16,000 feet above sea level.
Colquechaca, Bolivia, over 15,000 feet above sea level.
Ukdungle, India, over 15,000 feet above sea level.


Now, of course you can say, "yes but they are up mountains, etc or whatever.
The point is, the people of these places are at one hell of a high elevation.

If the map was made to cater for where these places are against lower places in whatever parts of the countries, then a  concave map could be made to see if it works out for where these places could be on it, as opposed to the nonsensical globe.

It's one trillion percent not a globe, so this stuff should be looked at, which I am trying to.

These towns are all in the centers of continents, your theory is based on an morphological pattern you ASSUME should happen with no evidence, the world is a globe, and you're not actually trying to look at anything. Facts are anathema to you.

You also did not explain how gravity and a spherical earth prevent the water cycle from happening, or why water must flow into space on a round earth.

You really shouldn't mention FACTS like what you're actually saying is FACT, because that's not exactly correct, is it?

Your FACTS are based on books, not direct visual sighting or direct measurement of anything done by yourself.

About your gravity and spherical earth.
The simple and easy answer, is, the water would run off, just as it would if you poured it on a football.
Your gravity is laughable. It does not exist.
I mean, your supposed moons gravity pulls at the oceans and yet your so called earth gravity pulls everything into the centre....I mean...what?
It's so senseless, it's beyond all reason and the most basic logic and common sense.

It could only flow downhill to the sea on certain areas and I'm being kind in saying that, because in reality, the sea would not exist on a globe, because not only would it flow down hill, it would flow off into your space.

from personal experience I can tell you that rivers flow into the sea on all coasts of the UK, north south east and west.

I've personally seen several including the Humber in the north east, the Thames in the south east, the Hamble and many many others in the south and the Severn and the Tyne in the south west and north west.

I'm reliably informed that Scotland also has rivers that flow into the sea on it's north coast too but I haven't personally verified them yet I'm afraid. It still leaves us with the obvious conclusion that land is simply higher than water no matter what shape the underlying sea bed.

You really shouldn't mention FACTS like what you're actually saying is FACT, because that's not exactly correct, is it?[/quote]

No, what I'm saying is fact. And hell, my hypothesis about your revulsion to them is looking supported. Look at the reaction I got!

Your FACTS are based on books, not direct visual sighting or direct measurement of anything done by yourself.

From direct personal experience, I can say rivers run to the Ocean on both east and west coasts of north and south Americas and in Europe. From documentary evidence, I can say the same about Africa, asia, Australia, and the pacific islands.

About your gravity and spherical earth.
The simple and easy answer, is, the water would run off, just as it would if you poured it on a football.

Water runs off of a football because there is a stronger attractive force pulling it away. When this force is negated, water does not flow downwards, but gathers up in a blob.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wringing out Water on the ISS - for Science!

Your gravity is laughable. It does not exist.

It does. It's responsible for objects falling towards earth, not your Platonic elemental sorting gibber jabber.

I mean, your supposed moons gravity pulls at the oceans and yet your so called earth gravity pulls everything into the centre....I mean...what?
It's so senseless, it's beyond all reason and the most basic logic and common sense.

No, two massive bodies near each other attract each other, and all smaller bodies around them. That's not beyond all reason, that's verified through math and experimentation.

Really, Scepti, more and more, your only rebuttal to modern physics is that it's "laughable" or "beyond reason," with no actual argument, so everyone can see what you really mean when you say that is "I don't understand it, therefore it cannot be true."