GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

No, down is toward the center of the Earth. That's exactly one and only one direction from any specific point on Earth. Why is that so difficult for you to see?

This very point is the one thing that cikljamas just can't seem to comprehend, nor does he understand that it totally destroys 99% of his arguments.  The gravitational force of every single object on the surface of the earth is directed at the centre of gravity of the earth's mass, but cikljamas's knowledge of geophysics and mechanics appears to be very limited.

The best he could do with me was to call me a liar!   

And yes; the red text is pretty juvenile ain't it.   

Perfectly flat Lake (like a mirror) :

They curved 

They curved 

Only in your round head.  Happy New Year your round heads! 

I thought that it was the self-evident fact, but since Alpha2Omega is so meticulous, we shall reformulate my assertion like this :

Accepting RET idiotic assumption we must also presume that "down" is in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface !

"At the SAME LEVEL" means that we have to compare specific points at the surfaces of the Lakes, Oceans, or other DEAD LEVEL surfaces, we certainly didn't mean to compare specific points at different altitudes!

The phrase "SEE LEVEL" says it all!

SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL, doesn't it?

If the Earth were a sphere, it wouldn't be a LEVEL, by no means!

The best way to stress (once more) how really stupid and counterintuitive is this idiotic RET assumption would be if we repeated these words:

You would be placed (from any single point, AT THE SAME LEVEL, at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it?

Same goes for our examples of EXTREME FLAT portions of the flow of the biggest RIVERs in the world:

1. "The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course."

If the Earth were a globe in the middle of these 700 miles we would have a 100 km high bulge/hill of water as an visual, radar', and physical obstacle between two ends of these 700 miles of Amazon' flow!

2. "The La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"

If the Earth were a globe then for every mile we have to presume 8 inches of descend which would make meaningless above "one thirty-third of an inch a mile"!

3. The "Parana" and "Paraguay" in South America are navigable for over 2 000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin.

4. "The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

5.The Blue Nile flows west then north until it eventually meets the White Nile at Khartoum. A length of 800 km/500 mi is navigable during high water times.




Alpha2Omega, your reckoning was right, but 0,01% was wrong number. We can only ask why this wrong number circulates all over the internet? Above diagram has debunked this misinformation!!!

Bearing in mind that that on the round Earth "DOWN" would be in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface we should consider once more these words of mine:

Alpha2Omega, your "explanation" for "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument is nothing but a hand waving "argument"!

Do you remember this very sentence in the context of "Polaris" argument:

"Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever." You can read it once more here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 if you want...

Same with "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument: It doesn't matter if it is only 1 foot, or 100 foots, as long as it is MUCH less then 200 km high bulge which is our hypothetical reference point in the middle of our 1000 miles section of Nile along which Nile falls but a foot!

If the Earth were a globe, curvature of the Earth would produce this huge hypothetical bulge by necessity, and in whatever manner (geometrically) you observe this bulge (you can even turn it upside down), the Nile must overcome this obstacle by going upward/uphill. In another words, our hypothetical bulge would cancel out this (1 foot / 100 foots) difference, this difference would be of no significance if the Earth were a globe.

On top of that:

If the Earth were a globe, on what basis would scientists call 400 km of Sudd Area through which White Nile falls but a foot:  "An EXTREMELY flat area"?

On the spherical Earth there would be no EXTREMELY flat areas of any kind, even surfaces of all waters on the Earth would be spherical, not flat!

We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.

cikljamas, in RE flat means level or following the Earth's curvature. If you want a straight line, you need to use laser. Over a sufficiently long distance, you can see that water level ≠ laser level:

cikljamas, in RE flat means level or following the Earth's curvature.

And again, this is a simple point that cikljamas is apparently unable to comprehend.  He still seems to think that the surface of any restrained body of water is flat rather than curved.  He also misinterprets the word "level" in the term sea level (although he calls it see level due to translation?).  Sea level refers to a vertical datum point on the surface of the water at a specific distance from the earth's centre of gravity.  To be precise, the term AMSL, above mean sea level, is used internationally.  Therefore, a mountain peak at 1,000m AMSL at the coast of Sydney, Australia is exactly identical to the elevation of a mountain peak at 1,000m AMSL at the coast of California.

Quote from: Cartesian on December 31, 2014, 03:00:25 AM

They curved 

Only in your round head.  Happy New Year your round heads! 

I thought that it was the self-evident fact, but since Alpha2Omega is so meticulous, we shall reformulate my assertion like this :

Accepting RET idiotic assumption we must also presume that "down" is in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface !

"At the SAME LEVEL" means that we have to compare specific points at the surfaces of the Lakes, Oceans, or other DEAD LEVEL surfaces, we certainly didn't mean to compare specific points at different altitudes!

The phrase "SEE LEVEL" says it all!

SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL, doesn't it?

If the Earth were a sphere, it wouldn't be a LEVEL, by no means!

The best way to stress (once more) how really stupid and counterintuitive is this idiotic RET assumption would be if we repeated these words:

You would be placed (from any single point, AT THE SAME LEVEL, at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it?

Same goes for our examples of EXTREME FLAT portions of the flow of the biggest RIVERs in the world:

1. "The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course."

If the Earth were a globe in the middle of these 700 miles we would have a 100 km high bulge/hill of water as an visual, radar', and physical obstacle between two ends of these 700 miles of Amazon' flow!

2. "The La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"

If the Earth were a globe then for every mile we have to presume 8 inches of descend which would make meaningless above "one thirty-third of an inch a mile"!

3. The "Parana" and "Paraguay" in South America are navigable for over 2 000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin.

4. "The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

5.The Blue Nile flows west then north until it eventually meets the White Nile at Khartoum. A length of 800 km/500 mi is navigable during high water times.




Alpha2Omega, your reckoning was right, but 0,01% was wrong number. We can only ask why this wrong number circulates all over the internet? Above diagram has debunked this misinformation!!!

Bearing in mind that that on the round Earth "DOWN" would be in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface we should consider once more these words of mine:

Quote

Alpha2Omega, your "explanation" for "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument is nothing but a hand waving "argument"!

Do you remember this very sentence in the context of "Polaris" argument:

"Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever." You can read it once more here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 if you want...

Same with "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument: It doesn't matter if it is only 1 foot, or 100 foots, as long as it is MUCH less then 200 km high bulge which is our hypothetical reference point in the middle of our 1000 miles section of Nile along which Nile falls but a foot!

If the Earth were a globe, curvature of the Earth would produce this huge hypothetical bulge by necessity, and in whatever manner (geometrically) you observe this bulge (you can even turn it upside down), the Nile must overcome this obstacle by going upward/uphill. In another words, our hypothetical bulge would cancel out this (1 foot / 100 foots) difference, this difference would be of no significance if the Earth were a globe.

On top of that:

If the Earth were a globe, on what basis would scientists call 400 km of Sudd Area through which White Nile falls but a foot:  "An EXTREMELY flat area"?

On the spherical Earth there would be no EXTREMELY flat areas of any kind, even surfaces of all waters on the Earth would be spherical, not flat!

We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.

1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.

2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.

3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.

4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.

6. If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise" - to the extent, of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on a level with the eye - that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.

7. If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears "hull down," as it is called, it is because the hull is "behind the water:" for, vessels, have been seen, and may often be seen - again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away - far away - beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the "hull-down" ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.

8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

9. As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well - and only tolerably for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we speak - that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be, whether the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of "plane sailing," a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.

10. That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.

11. If the Earth were  a  globe,  the  distance round its surface at, say, 45 “degrees” south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the  distance—to say the least of it or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

12. The common sense of man tells him - if nothing else told him that there is an “UP” and a "DOWN” in nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion  that there is not: therefore, the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense - eyes, and to inspiration and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.

13. If the Earth were a globe, it would, if we take Valentia to be the place of departure, curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles across the Atlantic to Newfoundland, according to  the astronomers’ own tables, more than three-hundred miles; but, as the surface of the Atlantic does not do so — the fact of its levelness having been clearly demonstrated by Telegraph Cable surveyors, —it follows that we have a grand proof that Earth is not a globe.

14. Astronomers, in their consideration of the supposed “curvature” of the Earth, have carefully avoided the taking of that view of the question which — if anything were needed to do so — would show its utter absurdity.  It is this: —If, instead of taking our ideal point of departure to be at Valentia, we consider ourselves at St. John’s, the 1665 miles of water between us and Valentia  would just as well “curvate”  downwards as it did in the other case! Now, since the direction in which the Earth is said to “curvate” is interchangeable—depending, indeed, upon the position occupied by a man upon its surface — the thing is utterly absurd; and it follows that the theory is an outrage, and that the Earth does not “curvate” at all : — an  evident proof  that  the Earth is not a globe.

15. Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth’s surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a  level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as avast “hill” - of water! The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a “hill of water" more than a hundred miles high!  The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description:  and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such “science” as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OF YOU!

P. S. Round heads: EXIT STUPIDITY!!!

As clk is also allowed to call us stupid, I assume I can insult the flat heads all the time. Or maybe flatwits are excepted from the rules.

Proof of No. 11 please.

Cikljamas have a good think about this post.

cikljamas, in RE flat means level or following the Earth's curvature. If you want a straight line, you need to use laser. Over a sufficiently long distance, you can see that water level ≠ laser level:

Now respond to it. What are you afraid of?

I love this forum!

Cikljamas have a good think about this post.

Quote from: Cartesian on December 31, 2014, 04:14:36 AM

cikljamas, in RE flat means level or following the Earth's curvature. If you want a straight line, you need to use laser. Over a sufficiently long distance, you can see that water level ≠ laser level:

Now respond to it. What are you afraid of?

Flat earthers think that light moves like a drunk mouse and that ut tends to bend up for no reason in such a way that it looks just like we are on a round Earth, how convenient.

1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.

2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.

3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.

4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.

6. If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise" - to the extent, of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on a level with the eye - that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.

7. If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears "hull down," as it is called, it is because the hull is "behind the water:" for, vessels, have been seen, and may often be seen - again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away - far away - beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the "hull-down" ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.

8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

9. As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well - and only tolerably for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we speak - that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be, whether the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of "plane sailing," a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.

10. That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.

11. If the Earth were  a  globe,  the  distance round its surface at, say, 45 “degrees” south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the  distance—to say the least of it or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

12. The common sense of man tells him - if nothing else told him that there is an “UP” and a "DOWN” in nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion  that there is not: therefore, the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense - eyes, and to inspiration and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.

13. If the Earth were a globe, it would, if we take Valentia to be the place of departure, curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles across the Atlantic to Newfoundland, according to  the astronomers’ own tables, more than three-hundred miles; but, as the surface of the Atlantic does not do so — the fact of its levelness having been clearly demonstrated by Telegraph Cable surveyors, —it follows that we have a grand proof that Earth is not a globe.

14. Astronomers, in their consideration of the supposed “curvature” of the Earth, have carefully avoided the taking of that view of the question which — if anything were needed to do so — would show its utter absurdity.  It is this: —If, instead of taking our ideal point of departure to be at Valentia, we consider ourselves at St. John’s, the 1665 miles of water between us and Valentia  would just as well “curvate”  downwards as it did in the other case! Now, since the direction in which the Earth is said to “curvate” is interchangeable—depending, indeed, upon the position occupied by a man upon its surface — the thing is utterly absurd; and it follows that the theory is an outrage, and that the Earth does not “curvate” at all : — an  evident proof  that  the Earth is not a globe.

15. Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth’s surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a  level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as avast “hill” - of water! The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a “hill of water" more than a hundred miles high!  The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description:  and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such “science” as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Is it possible for you to actually come up with some original thoughts of your own cikljamas?

You've simply plagiarized en masse this entire plethora of out-dated pseudo-science from this site, and without any due citation:

A Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe written by printer and publisher William Carpenter in 1885.

A couple of points need to be made:  Carpenter was a proponent of Samuel Rowbotham's pseudo-science;  he had zero academic qualifications—particularly in the sciences;  and the entirety of the 15 reasons is more than 125 years out of date.

Apparently you're unable to grasp—or willfully ignore the fact—that science has made enormous advances in the ensuing period?  Why is it that you—like most flat earthers—cling desperately to so-called "scientific" texts that were written well over a century ago?  If you were tomorrow stricken with a life-threatening illness, would you refer to a medical text written in 1914 or one written in 2014?

Copy-pasta does not a sound argument make.  Sorry.   

@ ausGeoff, it seems that you have missed all these original thoughts of mine:

1.

The only one's who I pity, are the weak minded one's. Those who should know better but are too weak to dare to know better.

The evidence against a globe is so overwhelming, it's scarily comical and yet weirdly scary at the same time, that supposed rational people stick to it like limpets and believe they are the smart ones.

Just think, all those meaningless equations and thought experiments that they studied for years on end are nothing more than the reliance on faith in people that sell the story, who examine them to make sure they too it all in by putting a tick against their answers, all for the sake of a certificate to say they learned to memorise crap.

ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054

EARTH's TILT ARGUMENT - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647469#msg1647469

INTRODUCTION:

We know that rivers flow down to the oceans. On a globe there can't be up and down(so they claim), so why exactly water flows down to the oceans if the oceans also have an incline and are not flat. Actually of course a round sphere has a top and a bottom. Doesn't make sense at all. The oceans would destroy the land completely if the Earth were round and somehow the water managed to stick to the surface. They would constantly push on to land till they cut through it. That is how water behaves if it is on a slope and meets a barrier on its way. If there is an incline to water then you wouldn't need wind to sail, you would just go down with the flow. A round surface gives you the incline, so it doesn't make sense.

TSUNAMI-RIVERS ARGUMENT:

A tsunami is basically a shallow-water wave, even in deep seas. Tsunamis typically have wave lengths of 200km, which makes them shallow water waves even in the ocean.

These waves have insignificant wave heights at sea, but in shallow coastal waters they can exceed 30m (100 ft). They may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Earthquakes in the Aleutian Trench regularly send large seismic waves across the Pacific Ocean, affecting Hawaii and the coastlines of the North Pacific Ocean.

When an earthquake occurs, energy will be transferred to the water, resulting in water waves. As the waves reach seashore, because the sea depth is getting shallower and wavelength is getting shorter, the height of the wave gets push up, resulting in tsunami. In other words in deep sea, water won't get pushed up as high as the water in shallow seashore.

Tsunami animation : http://www.embc.gov.bc.ca/em/tsunamis/causes_2.htm

As you can see in animation above (and in explanation above animation), tsunami waves are shallow-water waves which may travel thousands of kilometers across the ocean nearly unnoticed until they reach land. Only when tsunami waves come closer to seashore, their depth is getting shallower, their wavelength is getting shorter, and the height of the wave becomes larger, resulting in destructive consequences...

So, what is wrong here?

FIRST OBSTACLE:

If the Earth were a globe, tsunami waves would get stronger and bigger/higher with every mile as they DESCENDED DOWN the Slope, so that the final results of most of typical tsunamis would be so disastrous that we would witness to similar consequences (as we had seen in "tsunami 2004." case), almost - ON DAILY BASIS!!!

If the Earth were a globe, the mechanics of every minor tsunami would be very similar to the mechanics of a typical avalanche (in mountain region), that is to say, oceanic coastal regions would be practically uninhabitable.

1 mile distance = 20 cm inclination
2 miles distance = 80 cm inclination
4 miles distance = 320 cm inclination
8 miles distance = 1280 cm inclination
16 miles distance = 5120 cm inclination
32 miles distance = 20480 cm inclination
64 miles distance = 81920 cm inclination
128 miles distance = 3,27 KM inclination

Now, The distance between Padang Sumatra and South Africa is more then 5000 miles. What value of inclination should we take into account regarding that distance (on a supposed globe)?

5000 miles distance = 5000 KM inclination which is equivalent to 568 Mount Everests in a row!!!

SECOND OBSTACLE:

Now, if we take as a reference point half a distance between Sumatra and South Africa, we should suppose that first half of that distance, tsunami wave should climb up 1250 km (which is equivalent to 142 Mount Everests in a row) in order to be able to begin downhill down the ocean slope!

THIRD OBSTACLE:

Try to combine second obstacle with the alleged rotation of the Earth in a direction West-East!

HOW ABOUT THE RIVERS?

"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."

A foot = 30,48 cm

Now, try to apply SECOND OBSTACLE to Nile river example, and ask yourself what must be the only possible consequence (inference) of your futile logical attempt to solve this unresolvable problem (under RET assumption)?

The only possible inference is that the Earth is flatly FLAT!!!


Nile is the longest river in the world (6650 km - 4132 Miles), and in a thousand miles Nile falls just one feet!

This means that in the middle of this 1000 miles (within which Nile falls but a foot), we should imagine 200 km high mountain due to alleged curvature of the Earth!

How waters of Nile can overcome such obstacle?

Only completely sick mind can believe such brazen stupidity!

And of course, after you "successfully" debunk Tsunami and Rivers argument you can try to answer to this question, also:

See a diagram  below "Countries most affected by the tsunami, with the earthquake's epicenter", and try to explain to us how come that Tzunami Effects on South African Coast were much greater than on Australian West Coast?

Bear in mind that according to your RET map, the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to South Africa is MORE THAN TWICE greater than the distance from the epicentre of the earthquake to Australian West Coast!



Scepti, we can only pity them if they really mean what they say. As for the shills, we must keep laughing, they leave us no other option, and the best part is that they are really funny guys, i mean REALLY funny guys, hahahahah....

2.

So reply to mine then

Why hasn't Australia been badly affected by recent tsunamis? http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/04/2835659.htm

The answer : Because the Earth is flat, that is to say :

It all comes down to geography, says Professor Goff from the Australian Tsunami Research Centre .

3.

They curved 

Only in your round head.  Happy New Year your round heads! 

I thought that it was the self-evident fact, but since Alpha2Omega is so meticulous, we shall reformulate my assertion like this :

Accepting RET idiotic assumption we must also presume that "down" is in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface !

"At the SAME LEVEL" means that we have to compare specific points at the surfaces of the Lakes, Oceans, or other DEAD LEVEL surfaces, we certainly didn't mean to compare specific points at different altitudes!

The phrase "SEE LEVEL" says it all!

SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL, doesn't it?

If the Earth were a sphere, it wouldn't be a LEVEL, by no means!

The best way to stress (once more) how really stupid and counterintuitive is this idiotic RET assumption would be if we repeated these words:

You would be placed (from any single point, AT THE SAME LEVEL, at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it?

Same goes for our examples of EXTREME FLAT portions of the flow of the biggest RIVERs in the world:

1. "The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course."

If the Earth were a globe in the middle of these 700 miles we would have a 100 km high bulge/hill of water as an visual, radar', and physical obstacle between two ends of these 700 miles of Amazon' flow!

2. "The La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"

If the Earth were a globe then for every mile we have to presume 8 inches of descend which would make meaningless above "one thirty-third of an inch a mile"!

3. The "Parana" and "Paraguay" in South America are navigable for over 2 000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin.

4. "The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

5.The Blue Nile flows west then north until it eventually meets the White Nile at Khartoum. A length of 800 km/500 mi is navigable during high water times.




Alpha2Omega, your reckoning was right, but 0,01% was wrong number. We can only ask why this wrong number circulates all over the internet? Above diagram has debunked this misinformation!!!

Bearing in mind that that on the round Earth "DOWN" would be in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface we should consider once more these words of mine:

Alpha2Omega, your "explanation" for "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument is nothing but a hand waving "argument"!

Do you remember this very sentence in the context of "Polaris" argument:

"Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever." You can read it once more here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054 if you want...

Same with "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument: It doesn't matter if it is only 1 foot, or 100 foots, as long as it is MUCH less then 200 km high bulge which is our hypothetical reference point in the middle of our 1000 miles section of Nile along which Nile falls but a foot!

If the Earth were a globe, curvature of the Earth would produce this huge hypothetical bulge by necessity, and in whatever manner (geometrically) you observe this bulge (you can even turn it upside down), the Nile must overcome this obstacle by going upward/uphill. In another words, our hypothetical bulge would cancel out this (1 foot / 100 foots) difference, this difference would be of no significance if the Earth were a globe.

On top of that:

If the Earth were a globe, on what basis would scientists call 400 km of Sudd Area through which White Nile falls but a foot:  "An EXTREMELY flat area"?

On the spherical Earth there would be no EXTREMELY flat areas of any kind, even surfaces of all waters on the Earth would be spherical, not flat!

We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.

4.

Only after you ponder on these arguments meticulously and carefully you will be ready for Carpenter's  "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe"!!!

5.

The fact that you live in 21. century is disadvantage for you (and i understand that), however, you have no excuse since i have debunked (in details) fraudulence of all the hoaxes and scams that have been imposed upon you and you deluded "round" friends!

6.

Exit stupidity!

Cikljamas, how many times do we have to tell you that "down" on a globe is always towards the center?

And how many times do we have to tell you that repeating the same erroneous post over and over doesn't make it right, it just makes it more obvious how wrong you are.

@ ausGeoff, it seems that you have missed all these original thoughts of mine:

1.

-Same copypasta again.-

Exit stupidity!

That's all been explained and you were shown to be wrong or deceitful ...... or joking based on how wrong your arguments are. 

Do you have anything new for us to rip apart?

Maybe cikljamas will be able to comprehend an easy (but only illustrative) example:

The head of a 1,000km long river is at an altitude of 400 metres.  Its outfall is at an elevation of 4 metres.  That means—obviously—it falls 396 metres over its length.

So... at its head it's 6,371,000m + 400m distant from the CoG of the earth.  At its outfall it's 6,371,000m + 4m from the CoG of the earth.

One cannot draw a straight line from its head to its outfall as the mean surface of the water (theoretically) describes a shallow vertical curve which follows the nominal profile of the earth's surface beneath it.

He claims (without any attribution) the following:

"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet—notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot.  A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity.  It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."

This is nothing more than a totally naive misconception by printer and publisher William Carpenter—a proponent of Samuel Rowbotham—posited in 1885.  And we all know by now that cikljamas invariably supports his arguments—such as they are LOL—with science that's out of date by 150 years.  The guy really needs to check out some scientific texts that've been written this century, but then that'd shoot all his absurd pseudo-science out of the water wouldn't it?

I love cikljamas' view of round earth:

Salt flats  ( Bending oceans,,LOL

Now I am expecting Katara to be bending OCEANS



A Round ''Plaine,.. LMAO

The salt lake looks round to me as some parts of the mountains disappear behind the horizon

How did the pilot survive? There is no ejection seat. How did he jump out of the plane at 50000ft?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820138/50-000-feet-high-no-oxygen-travelling-speed-sound-did-pilot-survive-Virgin-Galactic-crash-injured-shoulder.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490


"Investigators are trying to piece together how SpaceShipTwo's surviving pilot managed to escape the rocket as it disintegrated around him and parachute to the ground from an altitude virtually devoid of oxygen.

Pete Siebold, 43, sustained just an injured shoulder when the Virgin Galactic spacecraft broke apart mid-flight and crashed in the Mojave desert last Friday, killing co-pilot Michael Alsbury, 39.

Christopher Hart, acting chairman for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that is leading the crash investigation, said Mr Siebold did not exit through the cockpit's escape hatch.

'We know it wasn't through there, so how did this pilot get out?' he said."

How did the pilot survive? There is no ejection seat. How did he jump out of the plane at 50000ft?

Hmm... let me guess... perhaps he's a liar - and never flew the plane in the first place?

                        ===================================================

E= mc2  ' does this sound familiar,,,

(' Relativity is not only wrong, it’s an disgrace to common sense, and its creator, so could it be' that ,Albert Einstein, was no less than a 'Jweish Fcuk,,.

'The Einstein Bullshit' is intended for those who have been suspicious of the premise that reality is so subtle that it can only be understood in terms of sophisticated abstract mathematics to which only the elite were privy.

The understanding of reality in concrete terms was presented as being beyond the capability of intelligent individuals.

Instead, reality turns out to be readily understandable in terms of common sense reasoning once the smoke and mirrors of mathematical obfuscation and the mathematical and logical errors associated with Special and General Relativity have been removed."

'The speed of light relative to what?'

accredited scientists ,,,, Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity.... why 'Could it be because its' Bullshit,,,


[/quote]



Of course the fact the majority of the public won't for one single moment question the legitimacy of any of these, regardless of how artificial and digital some of them may appear, is a testament to the power that Science has over the human mind.



"ENOS THE CHIMP - first American to orbit Earth":

Pilot who survived Virgin Galactic crash tells how he was dramatically thrown clear of spaceship as it broke up

And they wore oxygen masks too:



But anyway, this has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

How did the pilot survive? There is no ejection seat. How did he jump out of the plane at 50000ft?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820138/50-000-feet-high-no-oxygen-travelling-speed-sound-did-pilot-survive-Virgin-Galactic-crash-injured-shoulder.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490


"Investigators are trying to piece together how SpaceShipTwo's surviving pilot managed to escape the rocket as it disintegrated around him and parachute to the ground from an altitude virtually devoid of oxygen.

Pete Siebold, 43, sustained just an injured shoulder when the Virgin Galactic spacecraft broke apart mid-flight and crashed in the Mojave desert last Friday, killing co-pilot Michael Alsbury, 39.

Christopher Hart, acting chairman for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that is leading the crash investigation, said Mr Siebold did not exit through the cockpit's escape hatch.

'We know it wasn't through there, so how did this pilot get out?' he said."

How did the pilot survive? There is no ejection seat. How did he jump out of the plane at 50000ft?

Hmm... let me guess... perhaps he's a liar - and never flew the plane in the first place?

                        ===================================================

E= mc2  ' does this sound familiar,,,

(' Relativity is not only wrong, it’s an disgrace to common sense, and its creator, so could it be' that ,Albert Einstein, was no less than a 'Jweish Fcuk,,.

'The Einstein Bullshit' is intended for those who have been suspicious of the premise that reality is so subtle that it can only be understood in terms of sophisticated abstract mathematics to which only the elite were privy.

The understanding of reality in concrete terms was presented as being beyond the capability of intelligent individuals.

Instead, reality turns out to be readily understandable in terms of common sense reasoning once the smoke and mirrors of mathematical obfuscation and the mathematical and logical errors associated with Special and General Relativity have been removed."

'The speed of light relative to what?'

accredited scientists ,,,, Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity.... why 'Could it be because its' Bullshit,,,

Of course the fact the majority of the public won't for one single moment question the legitimacy of any of these, regardless of how artificial and digital some of them may appear, is a testament to the power that Science has over the human mind.



"ENOS THE CHIMP - first American to orbit Earth":




[/quote] Very well put. It astonishes me how easy it is to dupe so many supposed normal intelligent people, but I also have to understand that abiding by protocol and trusting the authority has been ingrained into the psyche from birth.

The problem I have is when things like this space venture stuff comes out with that pilot parachuting from 50,000 feet out of a supposed disintegrating space ship and survives.
You see, the average person is brought up on movie stunts and special effects. They see this stuff all the time so a man escaping from a space ship is possible to the point of being regular. It's absolutely nuts.
We've been trained to accept fantasy for reality.

To keep the world alseep, give them fantasy to occupy their minds but let them know it is fantasy. This is called a movie.
This way you can also keep them alseep with other fantasies that can be passed of as fact with documentaries.

The difference between the truth and a lie is in how it's told and how interesting it can be portrayed.
A lie can become the truth if there is no way of finding the truth of that lie.

Being a liar can be a profession. It can pay well and can also put the liar on a pedestal.
The issue is in what constitutes a liar and what can be deemed a real lie.
The truth is, a lie is an untruth, so any untruth, no matter how it's told, is no less a lie.

Buying your child a magic wand from a shop will not make your kid a wizard or witch in reality but it will make them so in their fantasy.
Jumping off a shed roof in a made up cape, will not allow you to fly like superman but you will never know unless you try it and injure yourself.

Going into space can be every kids fantasy and can stay as a fantasy for the rest of their lives, whilst never experiencing it.
They can live on the fantasy of the story telling liars who turned their fantasy into real fantasy story telling, which to you is their fantasy turned into fact, because you have no reason to doubt the story teller, unless you're switched on enough to see them as a bad story teller.

They are lying to you but there's no harm done, right? I mean, if they're lying, then they gave you a dream - a fantasy to hold onto. Like the parent and the child. The parent gives the child a fantasy in santa claus.

Which one is worse?
Is it the fantasy astronaut selling you a lie of fantasy, or the parent selling you a fictional present giver?

The simple truth is this:
The stories you are told are the stories that you can never gain a reality from, physically.
You're as reliant on Harry Potter being a real wizard as you are of seeing astronauts shown to float in space.
When someone tells you that you can make fire from a stick and stone by friction, you can test it out.
When someone tells you that men can float in hundreds of miles high space, you have to apply to be an astronaut and wait until you see reality.

Our entire lives and history are a mixture of truth and fantasy. Our space adventures are absolute fantasy given out as truths in all apsects.
We are simply slaves that are fed just enough information to make us believe we are anything but. We are so used to it that we actually feel free. We are made to believe that we have a say and a thought on this Earth. We have neither, unless we are privvy to the reality, which 99.99% of the human population will never be.

Trying to make severely brainwashed people see a hint of reality is akin to trying to stop a herd of buffalo from stampeding over you by using a road crossing stop sign, such is the frenzied nature of people in allowing themselves to be controlled by the mere stamp of a foot.

Pilot who survived Virgin Galactic crash tells how he was dramatically thrown clear of spaceship as it broke up

And they wore oxygen masks too:



But anyway, this has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

All of this crap has everything to do with the global conspiracy as it all ties in. Anyone who believes this story - is child like.

septic have you been to Cavendish Laboratory yet to expand on your dunny pressure?.   
I guess not your are not locked up in a nut farm yet. How did you fool yourself, was the flat cookies?.

Very well put. It astonishes me how easy it is to dupe so many supposed normal intelligent people, but I also have to understand that abiding by protocol and trusting the authority has been ingrained into the psyche from birth.

The problem I have is when things like this space venture stuff comes out with that pilot parachuting from 50,000 feet out of a supposed disintegrating space ship and survives.
You see, the average person is brought up on movie stunts and special effects. They see this stuff all the time so a man escaping from a space ship is possible to the point of being regular. It's absolutely nuts.
We've been trained to accept fantasy for reality.

To keep the world alseep, give them fantasy to occupy their minds but let them know it is fantasy. This is called a movie.
This way you can also keep them alseep with other fantasies that can be passed of as fact with documentaries.

The difference between the truth and a lie is in how it's told and how interesting it can be portrayed.
A lie can become the truth if there is no way of finding the truth of that lie.

Being a liar can be a profession. It can pay well and can also put the liar on a pedestal.
The issue is in what constitutes a liar and what can be deemed a real lie.
The truth is, a lie is an untruth, so any untruth, no matter how it's told, is no less a lie.

Buying your child a magic wand from a shop will not make your kid a wizard or witch in reality but it will make them so in their fantasy.
Jumping off a shed roof in a made up cape, will not allow you to fly like superman but you will never know unless you try it and injure yourself.

Going into space can be every kids fantasy and can stay as a fantasy for the rest of their lives, whilst never experiencing it.
They can live on the fantasy of the story telling liars who turned their fantasy into real fantasy story telling, which to you is their fantasy turned into fact, because you have no reason to doubt the story teller, unless you're switched on enough to see them as a bad story teller.

They are lying to you but there's no harm done, right? I mean, if they're lying, then they gave you a dream - a fantasy to hold onto. Like the parent and the child. The parent gives the child a fantasy in santa claus.

Which one is worse?
Is it the fantasy astronaut selling you a lie of fantasy, or the parent selling you a fictional present giver?

The simple truth is this:
The stories you are told are the stories that you can never gain a reality from, physically.
You're as reliant on Harry Potter being a real wizard as you are of seeing astronauts shown to float in space.
When someone tells you that you can make fire from a stick and stone by friction, you can test it out.
When someone tells you that men can float in hundreds of miles high space, you have to apply to be an astronaut and wait until you see reality.

Our entire lives and history are a mixture of truth and fantasy. Our space adventures are absolute fantasy given out as truths in all apsects.
We are simply slaves that are fed just enough information to make us believe we are anything but. We are so used to it that we actually feel free. We are made to believe that we have a say and a thought on this Earth. We have neither, unless we are privvy to the reality, which 99.99% of the human population will never be.

Trying to make severely brainwashed people see a hint of reality is akin to trying to stop a herd of buffalo from stampeding over you by using a road crossing stop sign, such is the frenzied nature of people in allowing themselves to be controlled by the mere stamp of a foot.

Very well put Scepti! As always!  Thumb up!

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This is the life we live in.

Almost everything is faked.

Our realities are given to us.

We live in the real life version of the Truman Show.

If enough people snap out of their slumber and realize the news is faked to scare us in to submission, maybe we can put a stop to this.

Pilot who survived Virgin Galactic crash tells how he was dramatically thrown clear of spaceship as it broke up
And they wore oxygen masks too:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130926092259-n-virgin-galactic-space-tourism-richard-branson-00021421-620x348.jpg
But anyway, this has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

How about this:

If you want to know just a half of the truth then read this : EARTH's TILT ARGUMENT - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647469#msg1647469

If you want to be acquainted with the whole truth then you should read this : ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST - GLOBAL CONSPIRACY : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1647054#msg1647054

That is why i have put both links above in this post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526

If you want to know just a half of the truth then watch this:



If you want to be acquainted with the whole truth then you should ponder on this :



Now, a RET excuse for inaccuracy of Mercator maps and for impossibility to correctly draw  the continents using Peter's Projection maps, is that it is impossible to present reality (as it is on a globe) on a flat paper.

So, i have used transparent paper and my model of a globe, to draw-copy the continents as they are represented on a spherical model of the Earth, and then i have put them into perspective so to compare some sizes, and voila:

Example no.1 : HOW TO PUT 9 GREENLANDS IN 1 SOUTH AMERICA :



This example is not so far away from reality but we still lack almost one whole Greenland within South America...

Example no. 2 : HOW TO PUT 5 USA IN 1 AFRICA :



In the example above we see the representation which is totally off the reality!!!

Why?

Edit: Inquisitive, should i repeat these words for you once more:

So, i have used transparent paper and my model of a globe, to draw-copy the continents as they are represented on a spherical model of the Earth...

Simple,understand projection for maps.

That is why i have put both links above in this post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526

Good joke.  A link to this very very page.

If you want to know just a half of the truth then watch this:
http://i.imgur.com/Ji5VurV.jpg

Watch it for what?  It's an imaged of two overlayed projections.  What is your point?  Your other image with the triangle is all blurry still too.  I guess you want to post 'accurate' information.

I haven't been on here much recently, so this is going back a couple of days.

Quote from: Cartesian on December 31, 2014, 03:00:25 AM

They curved 

Only in your round head.  Happy New Year your round heads! 

I thought that it was the self-evident fact, but since Alpha2Omega is so meticulous, we shall reformulate my assertion like this :

Accepting RET idiotic assumption we must also presume that "down" is in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface !

Happy New Year! Thanks for the compliment.

How is your reformulated assertion any different than the original? "Down" is toward the center of the Earth (more precisely, normal to the geoid in the direction toward the center of the geoid) from any point on or near its surface. This will be true regardless of your elevation.

"At the SAME LEVEL" means that we have to compare specific points at the surfaces of the Lakes, Oceans, or other DEAD LEVEL surfaces, we certainly didn't mean to compare specific points at different altitudes!

The phrase "SEE LEVEL" says it all!

SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL, doesn't it?

Yes, a level has a constant distance from the geoid. Note this is not a flat plane as in mathematics; it has curvature (very slight for a small area, larger for larger areas because the geoid is really big).

If the Earth were a sphere, it wouldn't be a LEVEL, by no means!

Sure it would. You're thinking of "tangent to the geoid, or parallel to it", not "a level", which is a constant distance from the geoid.

The best way to stress (once more) how really stupid and counterintuitive is this idiotic RET assumption would be if we repeated these words:

You would be placed (from any single point, AT THE SAME LEVEL, at the surface of the Earth) down from some other guy, and in the same time, that other guy would be placed down from you! Stupid, isn't it?

This may seem counterintuitive to you, but not to people who can actually understand how this works - for them, it's obvious. If you're both at the same level then, by definition, you're not down from each other. You're at the same elevation, therefore neither is "down" from the other. Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand this?

Same goes for our examples of EXTREME FLAT portions of the flow of the biggest RIVERs in the world:

1. "The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course."

If the Earth were a globe in the middle of these 700 miles we would have a 100 km high bulge/hill of water as an visual, radar', and physical obstacle between two ends of these 700 miles of Amazon' flow!

2. "The La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"

If the Earth were a globe then for every mile we have to presume 8 inches of descend which would make meaningless above "one thirty-third of an inch a mile"!

3. The "Parana" and "Paraguay" in South America are navigable for over 2 000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin.

4. "The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

5.The Blue Nile flows west then north until it eventually meets the White Nile at Khartoum. A length of 800 km/500 mi is navigable during high water times.


<Image: http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/STS006-43-235.jpg. Confluence of Blue and White Nile from space, I think. Not sure what the point is.>

Alpha2Omega, your reckoning was right, but 0,01% was wrong number. We can only ask why this wrong number circulates all over the internet? Above diagram has debunked this misinformation!!!

OK, just to be clear, from all the above, it looks like you are abandoning your claims that

1) The Nile only drops one foot in 1,000 miles
2) The White Nile has a grade of 0.01% for 400 km.

Is that right?

There's a lot of wrong information circulating on the Internet. You're responsible for the information you post here; it's people like you that cause bad information to propagate, so don't act so indignant. We can start by asking you why you parroted (to use a favorite term here) that particular item of misinformation. Check your information before you post it. If everyone did this, what you complain about here will stop.

Given that you routinely assert bad information as "facts", why should anyone believe anything you post without independent confirmation.

Bearing in mind that that on the round Earth "DOWN" would be in all directions from ANY specific point (of view) (AT THE SAME LEVEL) at the Earth's surface we should consider once more these words of mine:

No, no, no! Down is a single direction. Toward the center of the Earth. Since your premise is completely wrong, any conclusions based on it are also wrong.

First it was one foot in 1,000 miles, then 40 m in 400 km, now this. Before that, you claimed that the tropics are only 1/4 of the way to the pole linearly, then defended it for a couple of pages before trying to pass that off as "only a joke."  I don't believe you.

"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course."

[Citation needed.]

Now the White Nile falls but a foot in 400 km.

[Citation needed.] That chart is too coarse to draw any such conclusion. Please provide a better reference.

"Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

Do you have a detailed topographic map with contour interval 1' or less that shows this?

Quote

Alpha2Omega, your "explanation" for "1 foot fall of the Nile in a thousand miles" FET argument is nothing but a hand waving "argument"!

<repeated stuff>

On top of that:

If the Earth were a globe, on what basis would scientists call 400 km of Sudd Area through which White Nile falls but a foot:  "An EXTREMELY flat area"?

On the spherical Earth there would be no EXTREMELY flat areas of any kind, even surfaces of all waters on the Earth would be spherical, not flat!

We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.

Since you have abandoned that claim, and don't know what "down" or "sea level" means, this is all just meaningless rambling, even the text in red.

Quote from: Cartesian on January 02, 2015, 04:29:35 AM

Pilot who survived Virgin Galactic crash tells how he was dramatically thrown clear of spaceship as it broke up

And they wore oxygen masks too:



But anyway, this has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

All of this crap has everything to do with the global conspiracy as it all ties in. Anyone who believes this story - is child like.

Anybody who believes in a theory that requires half the world and math to be in on a conspiracy is childish.