GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

Very well put Scepti! As always!    Thumb up!  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.

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... 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.

I'm guessing it won't be too long before we hear the glad news that sceptimatic and cikljamas are having their first love child.  They've been playing as a tag team for some time now, so it's probably imminent.

Isn't it funny though that two guys with the same whacky ideas eventually gravitate towards each other to the point of a relatively intimate on-line relationship.  I guess when the whole world thinks you're nuts, it's any port in a storm, so to speak?   

Quote from: cikljamas on January 02, 2015, 04:14:21 AM

Very well put Scepti! As always!    Thumb up!  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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2015, 05:13:23 AM

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... 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.

I'm guessing it won't be too long before we hear the glad news that sceptimatic and cikljamas are having their first love child.  They've been playing as a tag team for some time now, so it's probably imminent.

Isn't it funny though that two guys with the same whacky ideas eventually gravitate towards each other to the point of a relatively intimate on-line relationship.  I guess when the whole world thinks you're nuts, it's any port in a storm, so to speak?   

ausGeoff, you have had plenty of warnings.  Please take the rest of the day off to reflect on the notion of appropriate and inappropriate posting.  See you tomorrow. 

1. 

Quote

"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).

You need citations?

Here we go:

In "Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:

"In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi is estimated at 1.300.000 square miles, and that of the St. Lawrened at 600,000; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends an inhospitable FLAT of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next in order of importance is that section of Europe extending from the German Sea, through Prussia. Poland, and Russia, towards the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ONE VAST PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that It has been remarked, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE FROM LONDON TO MOSCOW, WHICH WOULD NOT PERCEPTIBLY VARY FROM A DEAD LEVEL."

The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the surface of the world is not globular.

From the "Atlas of Physical Geography," by the Rev. T.Milner, M.A., I extract the following:

" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."

"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."

"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"

These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe. And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence against the popular view. In "Nature and Man," by Professor W. B. Carpenter, article " The Deep Sea and its Contents," pages 320 and 321, the writer says :

"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas. The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded by an elevated and deeply-sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."

This remarkable writer tells of thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.

Let's put it this way:

OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:

Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:



Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!

Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!

Isn't that obvious?

 2.  

Quote

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?

Should i remind you to this post: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645696#msg1645696



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.

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.

 3.   

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.

Oh, yeah, i am responsible for all heliocentric lies in the world, no problem...

Look at just one another example of that kind:

Question: What is surface area of the continental united states?

Answer: It depends how the total size of the United States is calculated: the CIA World Factbook gives 3,794,083 sq mi (9,826,630 km2),[1] the United Nations Statistics Division gives 3,717,813 sq mi (9,629,091 km2),[24] and the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 3,676,486 sq mi (9,522,055 km2).

The truth: Not one of numbers above is correct!

The number closest to the reality is 3 537 436 sq miles, when we substract from that number Alaska and Hawaii we get 2 863 237 sq miles. Now, 11 677 239 sq miles (Africa) devided by 2 863 237 = 4,07.

On the other hand, in this video :  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> ...you can here estimation according which the size of the USA could be only one fifth of the Africa, and not one fourth part of the Africa! I believe that this guy has a good reason for such estimation.

This is the page at which you can find the copy of the map that has been presented in a video above, and you can also read one interesting discussion on this issue: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-true-size-of-africa/

One excerpt (out of the discussion):



So, what is the true size of Africa indeed?

Who knows...



Shouldn't we pose this question: Should we abandon old claims (and show mistrust towards Carpenter's words which had been written down 100 years ago) and rather chose to believe in modern lies? Just because they are modern?

If i have to choose to whom i am going to believe then i am choosing to believe to Carpenter's words:

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.

cikiljames, I think that this is the fourth time that I have had to tell you that down on a round Earth is always in the direction of the center of the sphere and altitude is distance from the center of the Earth.

1.  ...
You need citations?

Yes.

Here we go:

In "Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:

This isn't an adequate citation to identify the work you're referencing.
 
I can't locate the quoted text in the citation provided. I did find a similarly-titled publication attributed to the same author (a more complete citation than yours and a link to the entire text in google books here); as already noted, page 513 of that volume is not about Physical Geography, it's about kitchen gardens. It's presumably a different edition of the same work; can you find your quoted passage in the linked text, or provide a link or usable citation to whatever it is you're quoting from, please.

Oh, yes... Chambers apparently believes the Earth is almost perfectly spherical, and also believes Darwin is correct in his theory of the Origin of Species. Be careful of who you quote.

<copy-paste of text from here, with color and bolding added to make it more convincing>

Relevant part...

"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas. The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded by an elevated and deeply-sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."

This remarkable writer tells of thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.

Notice how the original author uses the term "plain" and it's subtly changed to "plane" in the commentary? These terms sound the same when spoken but have distinct meanings. A plain (in geomorphology) is not the same as a plane (in geometry), even if they're both described as "flat". In geometry, "plane" is a surface with infinite width and length, but no depth and no curvature. In geomorphology, a "plain" is a surface with little or no topography; the curvature of the Earth is not topography.

Let's put it this way:

OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:

Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:

<image representing ocean basins as chords within a circle>

Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!

Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!

Go back and read your quoted source. That says PLAIN, not PLANE (your all-caps). They're different. The abyssal plains are large areas with little topography and almost constant depth bounded by steep continental rises and, often, mid-ocean ridges (which were unknown to Carpenter). This isn't what you are trying to show.

Isn't that obvious?

The sleight of hand? Yes. Maybe it's an honest mistake of confusing terms; in that case: The mistake? Yes.

2.  

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 02, 2015, 11:27:17 AM

Quote

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?

Should i remind you to this post: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645696#msg1645696

I don't see why you would want to. The question about the direction compass needles point and the errors in the claims you presented were thoroughly discussed afterward.

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.

"Up" is the direction toward your zenith; "down" is the opposite direction. This makes perfect sense on a spherical earth. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Quote

3.   

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 02, 2015, 11:27:17 AM

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.

Oh, yeah, i am responsible for all heliocentric lies in the world, no problem...

No, you're not responsible for what others publish, but you are responsible for what you post and you can refrain from spreading misinformation by checking it before parroting it elsewhere on the Internet as fact, which you did. Especially if you want to complain about it.

You never answered the question. Are you retracting those claims?

Look at just one another example of that kind:

Question: What is surface area of the continental united states?

Answer: It depends how the total size of the United States is calculated: the CIA World Factbook gives 3,794,083 sq mi (9,826,630 km2),[1] the United Nations Statistics Division gives 3,717,813 sq mi (9,629,091 km2),[24] and the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 3,676,486 sq mi (9,522,055 km2).

The truth: Not one of numbers above is correct!

Are any criteria for what was counted in each of these areas provided? For instance, do they count lakes and offshore areas claimed by the US differently? This is alluded to in the comments you included below. Do they include territories like Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam? A couple of those copied numbers for area apparently have footnotes in the original text that might amplify this; did you read any of those? The third is taken from context that may have contained that information.

The number closest to the reality is 3 537 436 sq miles,

Citation needed.

when we substract from that number Alaska and Hawaii we get 2 863 237 sq miles. Now, 11 677 239 sq miles (Africa) devided by 2 863 237 = 4,07.

You're saying that Africa, the second-largest continent, has four times the area of the Continental US. OK. So?

On the other hand, in this video : 
<youtube video>
 ...you can here estimation according which the size of the USA could be only one fifth of the Africa, and not one fourth part of the Africa! I believe that this guy has a good reason for such estimation.

This is the page at which you can find the copy of the map that has been presented in a video above, and you can also read one interesting discussion on this issue:
<link to outline of Africa with various countries fitted into it>

I'm not sure what the point is here, but, no, I didn't watch the video. From what you say, someone thinks Africa is five times the size of the US, but you show it's four. OK. So? Can you describe the method he uses and why you think the results differ, and why it matters? Is there any compelling reason to actually watch this video?

Oh, yes... you should also provide information about where your "closest to reality" area of the US and the area of Africa came from. You simply state them as fact here without attribution, and we know how well that's worked recently. If you know the "real" area of the US, why not just use that? If you don't know the "real" area, how do you know your figure is closest to it?

One excerpt (out of the discussion):

<discussion including possible errors in the map and whether or not lakes are counted in the published areas of various countries>

So, what is the true size of Africa indeed?

Who knows...

Is there an actual dispute about the area of Africa to any significance?

<outline of Africa with various countries fitted into it, crudely-traced outline of Africa with three crudely-traced outlines of CONUS plus Baja California overlayed>

Shouldn't we pose this question: Should we abandon old claims (and show mistrust towards Carpenter's words which had been written down 100 years ago) and rather chose to believe in modern lies? Just because they are modern?

Just because it's modern doesn't that mean it's a lie. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's right (or even honest).

If i have to choose to whom i am going to believe then i am choosing to believe to Carpenter's words:

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.

Are you back to "the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot"? The graph you presented in conjunction after the "40 meters in 400 km" claim - which was then retracted - shows otherwise.

Even if that "one foot..." was right, which it's not, proves nothing about the shape of the Earth. This discussion is strong evidence that you don't understand basic concepts like "up" and "down". Are you going to claim you were joking again?

This isn't an adequate citation to identify the work you're referencing...It's presumably a different edition of the same work; can you find your quoted passage in the linked text, or provide a link or usable citation to whatever it is you're quoting from, please.

Go back and read your quoted source. That says PLAIN, not PLANE (your all-caps). They're different. The abyssal plains are large areas with little topography and almost constant depth bounded by steep continental rises and, often, mid-ocean ridges (which were unknown to Carpenter). This isn't what you are trying to show.

Really now?



Now, i would like to remind you to these words:

If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. We must be able to see both phenomena or none!

Same goes with this case : "OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT &  SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL argument"

FACT NO 1. OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:

Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:

Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!

Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!

FACT NO 2. SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL:

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.

BOTH FACTS ABOVE MUST BE TRUE OR NONE!

The first systematic survey of this kind brought out a set of facts which were then supposed to be exceptional, but which the sound ings of the Challenger, taken in connection with those of the United States ship Tuscarora and the German Gazelle, have shown to be general; viz. (i) that the bottom sinks very gradually from the coast of Ireland, westward, for a hundred miles or more; (2) that then, not far beyond the hundred-fathom line, it falls so rapidly that depths of from 1200 to 1500 fathoms are met with at only a short distance further west; (3) that after a further descent to a depth of more than 2000 fathoms, the bottom becomes a slightly undulating plain, whose gradients are so low as to show scarcely any perceptible alteration of depth in a section in which the same scales are used for vertical heights and horizontal distances; * and (4) that on the American side as on the British this plain is bordered by a very steep slope, leading up quickly to a bottom not much exceeding 100 fathoms in depth, which shallows gradually to the coast-line of America. Nothing seems to have struck the Challenger surveyors more than the extraordinary flatness (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the floor of the great oceanic area; the result of one day's sounding enabling a tolerably safe guess to be formed as to the depth to be encountered on the following day; and thus, if the bottom of the mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded by a plain only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas.

Thus our notions of the so-called "ocean basins" are found to require considerable modification; and it becomes obvious that, putting aside the oceanic islands which rise from the bottom of the sea, as mountain-peaks and ridges rise from the general surface of the land, the proper oceanic area is a portion of the crust of the earth which is depressed with tolerable uniformity some thousands of feet below the land area, whilst the bands of Sections drawn (as usual) with a vertical scale enormously in excess of the horizontal altogether misrepresent the real character of the oceanic sea-bed. READ MORE : http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Nature_and_Man_1000142291/325

Is there an actual dispute about the area of Africa to any significance?

In "Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 56, you can read this number: 12 256 000 SQ MILES! ("Modern number = 11 677 239 - WHY???)



Now, if we count like this : 12 256 000 / 2 863 237 we get number 4,28 which means that Africa is bigger than continental USA 4,3 times, not just 4,0 times, doesn't it?

If we subtracted 229,820 sq miles (Madagaskar - i don't know if Madagaskar was included in Chambers number) from Chambers number (12 256 000) then we should count like this: 12 026 180 / 2 863 237 = 4,2 which is still enough greater number than 4,0, isn't it?

What is obvious here is that modern cartographers try to make USA bigger than it is, and in the same time they try to make Africa smaller than it is.

What are they hiding?

Let me guess...

The Earth is flat?

So, how to put 4,2 (at least) USA in one Africa?



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

Elaborate on the sun zig zagging thing.  How would that happen given that the sun were stationary and the Earth revolved around it?  Be more specific then "right and left" because they are relative directions that depend on the posttion of the observer.

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

Africa is much bigger than the US.  I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.

FACT NO 2. SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL:

No, it means SEA level.  Level as in maintaining a constant elevation that follows the curvature of the planet.

Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface![/u]

No, the underwater plains also follow the curvature.

we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day

No, the sun would move one direction all day.

cikljamas can you please change your picture to better represent USA? You seem to have drawn it with Baja California. Baja California is part of Mexico.

Here is a topographical map stolen from wikipedia.

The lines follow a certain elevation. From what I gather, the book you are quoting is saying there is a certain path that can be taken from London to Russia on one elevation.(they must be ignoring the North Sea.)
They are not saying if you had a Craftsman Bubble Level that was 10,000 km long, you could put it from London to Moscow and it would show level over the whole thing. 

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 03, 2015, 07:11:49 PM

This isn't an adequate citation to identify the work you're referencing...It's presumably a different edition of the same work; can you find your quoted passage in the linked text, or provide a link or usable citation to whatever it is you're quoting from, please.

<image of some text without attribution>

[/quote]
The quote above is extraneous to what we were discussing. You still didn't give a usable citation to the text you say is from Chambers. Do you even have one?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 03, 2015, 07:11:49 PM

Go back and read your quoted source. That says PLAIN, not PLANE (your all-caps). They're different. The abyssal plains are large areas with little topography and almost constant depth bounded by steep continental rises and, often, mid-ocean ridges (which were unknown to Carpenter). This isn't what you are trying to show.

Really now?

OK. So?

Let's look at relevant definitions from the Glossary of Geology

plane A two-dimensional form that is without curvature; ideally, a perfectly flat or smooth surface.

plain (a) Any flat area, large or small, at a low elevation; specif. and extensive region of comparitively smooth and level or gently undulating land, having few or no prominent surface irregularities but sometimes having a considerable slope, and usually at a low elevation with reference to surrounding areas. (b) An extensive tract of level or rolliing, almost treeless country with with a shrubby vegetation; a prairie.

flat [geomorph] adj. Having or marked by a continuous surface or stretch of land that is smooth, even, or horizontal, or nearly so, and lacks any significant curvature, slope, elevations, or depressions. n. A general term for a level or nearly level surface or small area of land marked by little or no relief, as a plain; specif: mud flat; valley flat. Also, a nearly level region that visibly displays lower relief than its surroundings.

level [surv] n. ...[nb](a) and (b) describe instruments.[/nb] (c) A measurement of the difference of altitude of two points on the Earth's surface by means of a level.

altitude (a) The vertical distance of a level. a point, or an object considered as a point, above or below the surface of the Earth, measured from a given datum, usually mean sea level. Altitude is positive if the point or object is above the given datum and negative if it is below it. Cf: elevation [surv].

elevation [surv] The vertical distance from a datum (usually mean sea level) to a point or object on the Earth's surface; esp. the height of a ground point above the level of the sea.
 

Neuendorf, Klaus K.E., Mehl, James P., Jr., Jackson, Julia A. (2005) Glossary of Geology, Fifth Edition. American Geological Institute

The takeaway here is that a plane has no curvature, a plain has little topography (but can have some curvature, just not "significant" curvature). "Level" means no difference in vertical distance from datum (which is sea level, which curves).

Now, i would like to remind you to these words:

<repeat of zig-zag sun argument, already debunked>

Same goes with this case : "OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT &  SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL argument"

FACT NO 1. OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:

Quote

Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:

Note the incorrect use of plane. Most of the ocean beds are plains. They're different; see the definitions above.

This makes the stuff below meaningless.

Quote

Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!

Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface![/u]

FACT NO 2. SEE[sic] LEVEL means a LEVEL:

Quote

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.

BOTH FACTS ABOVE MUST BE TRUE OR NONE!

Since you're laboring under a misconception, both are irrelevant.

<repeated Challenger stuff>

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 03, 2015, 07:11:49 PM

Is there an actual dispute about the area of Africa to any significance?

In "Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 56, you can read this number: 12 256 000 SQ MILES! ("Modern number = 11 677 239 - WHY???)

<Image from Chambers>

Now, if we count like this : 12 256 000 / 2 863 237 we get number 4,28 which means that Africa is bigger than continental USA 4,3 times, not just 4,0 times, doesn't it?

If we subtracted 229,820 sq miles (Madagaskar - i don't know if Madagaskar was included in Chambers number)

There's the problem with just lifting these numbers and using them. You're not sure what they mean. You compare a number from some unspecified source to another number from more than 150 years ago that's 5% different, but you don't know exactly what it includes.

from Chambers number (12 256 000) then we should count like this: 12 026 180 / 2 863 237 = 4,2 which is still enough greater number than 4,0, isn't it?

What is obvious here is that modern cartographers try to make USA bigger than it is, and in the same time they try to make Africa smaller than it is.

What are they hiding?

Let me guess...

The Earth is flat?

Well, that's a guess. We'll leave it at that.

So, how to put 4,2 (at least) USA in one Africa?

<image of crude overlay that's supposed to show something or another, but doesn't show much of anything other than Africa is significantly larger than CONUS, which isn't in dispute>

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

You have areas of the US and Africa. The ratio looks about right from your overlayed outlines. Can you please explain why you think the area given for the US is overstated? Didn't you say in your previous post that a smaller number than others you cited was "closest to the reality"? You argue one thing in one post and the opposite in the next. What the hell is your point here?

Please explain what you're getting at; don't just link some youtube video.

Now, i would like to remind you to these words:

If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. We must be able to see both phenomena or none!

Same goes with this case : "OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT &  SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL argument"

FACT NO 1. OCEAN BEDS ARGUMENT:

Quote

Bearing in mind thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, we should consider what is represented in the next illustration:

Ocean waters supposedly follow general spherical shape of the Earth. Now, if we imagined 1000 miles long portion of an oceanic bed, we should suppose 200 km depth (under the ocean surface) at which this oceanic bed were situated, in order to stay below the surface of an ocean!

Otherwise, great portions of such VAST SUB-OCEANIC PLANES would cut out the curved sea level-line and protrude outward the ocean surface!

FACT NO 2. SEE LEVEL means a LEVEL:

Quote

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.

BOTH FACTS ABOVE MUST BE TRUE OR NONE!

Quote

The first systematic survey of this kind brought out a set of facts which were then supposed to be exceptional, but which the sound ings of the Challenger, taken in connection with those of the United States ship Tuscarora and the German Gazelle, have shown to be general; viz. (i) that the bottom sinks very gradually from the coast of Ireland, westward, for a hundred miles or more; (2) that then, not far beyond the hundred-fathom line, it falls so rapidly that depths of from 1200 to 1500 fathoms are met with at only a short distance further west; (3) that after a further descent to a depth of more than 2000 fathoms, the bottom becomes a slightly undulating plain, whose gradients are so low as to show scarcely any perceptible alteration of depth in a section in which the same scales are used for vertical heights and horizontal distances; * and (4) that on the American side as on the British this plain is bordered by a very steep slope, leading up quickly to a bottom not much exceeding 100 fathoms in depth, which shallows gradually to the coast-line of America. Nothing seems to have struck the Challenger surveyors more than the extraordinary flatness (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the floor of the great oceanic area; the result of one day's sounding enabling a tolerably safe guess to be formed as to the depth to be encountered on the following day; and thus, if the bottom of the mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded by a plain only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas.

Thus our notions of the so-called "ocean basins" are found to require considerable modification; and it becomes obvious that, putting aside the oceanic islands which rise from the bottom of the sea, as mountain-peaks and ridges rise from the general surface of the land, the proper oceanic area is a portion of the crust of the earth which is depressed with tolerable uniformity some thousands of feet below the land area, whilst the bands of Sections drawn (as usual) with a vertical scale enormously in excess of the horizontal altogether misrepresent the real character of the oceanic sea-bed. READ MORE : http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Nature_and_Man_1000142291/325

Why BOTH FACTS ABOVE MUST BE TRUE OR NONE!?

Let's consider next 4 possibilities (cases):

1. Ocean surface FLAT
    Ocean bed FLAT

This is how it really is and how it only can be!

2. Ocean surface CURVED
    Ocean bed FLAT

Why is this option incorrect? Because the result of a measuring by a method which has been used at that time, could not have been consistent with a report above! Supposed curved line of ocean surface would have prevented correctness of such inference according which the bottom of the MID-OCEAN is EXTRAORDINARY FLAT (EXCEPT IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF LAND)!

3. Ocean surface FLAT
    Ocean bed CURVED

Here goes the same explanation as in case no 2.

4. Ocean surface CURVED
    Ocean bed CURVED

In this case insurmountable obstacle (to draw consistent conclusion (with report above)) would be an uneven degree (of curvature) of two curved line (Ocean surface line & Ocean bed line). Ocean bed line would be curved to a greater extent than it would be the case with Ocean surface line, so that the final result by using old measuring methods, would not have been consistent with a report above!

See this diagram:



The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded by- an elevated and deeply -sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."

This remarkable writer tells of thousand.s of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.

Special addition: UNDISCOVERY OF NON-EXISTANT ISLAND (Sandy Island, New Caledonia) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Island,_New_Caledonia

edit: - One correction: In a diagram above i wrote (by accident) for CASE 4 :  O.B. FLAT instead of O.B. CURVED...
My apology!

Why should the shape of the ocean bed have anything at all to do with the shape of the ocean surface? 

Why should the shape of the ocean bed have anything at all to do with the shape of the ocean surface? 

Everything explained in a post above, but i can answer to your question in this way, also:

Because after the surface of all waters on the earth, abyssal plains are characterized by one of the flattest areas on Earth.

An abyssal plain is an underwater plain on the deep ocean floor, usually found at depths between 3000 and 6000 m. Lying generally between the foot of a continental rise and a mid-ocean ridge, abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface. They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain

The abyssal plains cover about 30% of the Atlantic and nearly 75% of the Pacific ocean floors.

Read more: ocean: Trenches, Plains, and Ridges | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/ocean-trenches-plains-ridges.html#ixzz3NxEXI3Hq

Abyssal plains illustration:


Abyssal plains flat like South American pampas:

What's your point?

4. Ocean surface CURVED
    Ocean bed CURVED

In this case insurmountable obstacle (to draw consistent conclusion (with report above)) would be an uneven degree (of curvature) of two curved line (Ocean surface line & Ocean bed line). Ocean bed line would be curved to a greater extent than it would be the case with Ocean surface line, so that the final result by using old measuring methods, would not have been consistent with a report above!

So the ocean floor has slightly more curvature than the ocean surface.  What is the problem?  Pretty basic geometry.  Draw a circle and then draw a slightly smaller circle centered inside it. 

Quote from: markjo on January 05, 2015, 07:28:27 AM

Why should the shape of the ocean bed have anything at all to do with the shape of the ocean surface? 

Because after the surface of all waters on the earth, abyssal plains are characterized by one of the flattest areas on Earth.

In other words, the shape of the ocean bed has nothing at all to do with the shape of the ocean surface.  Glad that we have that sorted.

Quote from: cikljamas on January 05, 2015, 05:54:27 AM

4. Ocean surface CURVED
    Ocean bed CURVED

In this case insurmountable obstacle (to draw consistent conclusion (with report above)) would be an uneven degree (of curvature) of two curved line (Ocean surface line & Ocean bed line). Ocean bed line would be curved to a greater extent than it would be the case with Ocean surface line, so that the final result by using old measuring methods, would not have been consistent with a report above!

So the ocean floor has slightly more curvature than the ocean surface.  What is the problem?  Pretty basic geometry.  Draw a circle and then draw a slightly smaller circle centered inside it.

Consider this:





Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?

Only, the Earth is not spherical at all...It's a pity (for engineers)...

Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?

That depends.  How easy is it tunnel through the earth's liquid mantle layer?

Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?

Not really.  In addition to what markjo said about drilling through the mantle and the extreme temperatures, you would also have some pretty steep grades away from the middle of the tunnel toward the ends.  It would probably be easier to just follow the curvature just under the ocean floor.

Quote from: cikljamas on January 05, 2015, 11:13:53 AM

Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?

Not really.  In addition to what markjo said about drilling through the mantle and the extreme temperatures, you would also have some pretty steep grades away from the middle of the tunnel toward the ends.  It would probably be easier to just follow the curvature just under the ocean floor.

If you wan to do that, then you would have to deal with the mid-Atlantic ridge where the North America and Eurasian plates are moving away from each other at the rate of about one inch per year.

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 05, 2015, 10:29:19 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on January 05, 2015, 05:54:27 AM

4. Ocean surface CURVED
    Ocean bed CURVED

In this case insurmountable obstacle (to draw consistent conclusion (with report above)) would be an uneven degree (of curvature) of two curved line (Ocean surface line & Ocean bed line). Ocean bed line would be curved to a greater extent than it would be the case with Ocean surface line, so that the final result by using old measuring methods, would not have been consistent with a report above!

So the ocean floor has slightly more curvature than the ocean surface.  What is the problem?  Pretty basic geometry.  Draw a circle and then draw a slightly smaller circle centered inside it.

Consider this:





Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?

Only, the Earth is not spherical at all...It's a pity (for engineers)...

Drilling a tunnel strait down 8,000 miles is easier said then done because after you get a few miles down things get really hot and presure get's really high.  It's not just a matter of being persistent with a shovel, just look it up, the interior of the Earth is not a very pleasant place to be.

Drilling a tunnel strait down 8,000 miles is easier said then done because after you get a few miles down things get really hot and pressure get's really high.  It's not just a matter of being persistent with a shovel, just look it up, the interior of the Earth is not a very pleasant place to be.

Good observation, it means that on the spherical Earth, engineers should drill tunnels (for example - below Atlantic) uphill, instead in a straight line or downhill (how tunnels would really be drilled if somebody decided to realize such project).

And you, round heads, have no problem with defending such stupid claims (that tunnels below Atlantic should be drilled uphill)

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 05, 2015, 12:16:54 PM

Drilling a tunnel strait down 8,000 miles is easier said then done because after you get a few miles down things get really hot and pressure get's really high.  It's not just a matter of being persistent with a shovel, just look it up, the interior of the Earth is not a very pleasant place to be.

Good observation, it means that on the spherical Earth, engineers should drill tunnels (for example - below Atlantic) uphill, instead in a straight line or downhill (how tunnels would really be drilled if somebody decided to realize such project).

And you, round heads, have no problem with defending such stupid claims (that tunnels below Atlantic should be drilled uphill)

I don't follow your reasoning, why would tunnels have to be drilled uphill on a round Earth?

Pretty basic geometry! If the Earth were spherical indeed, then drilling the tunnel between Europe and America would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER TASK, wouldn't be?

Only, the Earth is not spherical at all...It's a pity (for engineers)...

A similar work has been done in Japan Proton Accelerator Complex (J-PARC) facility where neutrino beam is shot towards a neutrino detector located ~300 km away (Super Kamiokande). In order to obtain a straight line from the generator to the detector, the nozzle for the neutrino beam from J-PARC had to be slightly tilted toward the center of the Earth due to the curvature of the Earth.



And here's a summary on how they take curvature into account while building the facility:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C04100411/papers/010.PDF

This is now the clkjmas super off-topic super thread.

Good observation, it means that on the spherical Earth, engineers should drill tunnels (for example - below Atlantic) uphill, instead in a straight line or downhill (how tunnels would really be drilled if somebody decided to realize such project).

And you, round heads, have no problem with defending such stupid claims (that tunnels below Atlantic should be drilled uphill)

A tunnel following the curvature would be neither uphill or downhill as the elevation would be constant (a tunnel under the ocean would still have entrances sloping down until leveling out under the ocean floor obviously). 

A tunnel 'straight' through with both entrances at the same elevation would be 'downhill' toward the middle (the elevation of the ends would be higher than the middle), gradually leveling out in the middle.

This is now the clkjmas super off-topic super thread.

He has no problems derailing his own derailments of his own threads. 

Lol crayons. Come on man.

Round heads, your asses are up, and your heads are down, no doubts about that! 

Round heads, your asses are up, and your heads are down, no doubts about that! 

The funny thing is that if we are round heads that makes you flat heads which is generally considered an insult.  Also, people standing on the opposite side of a round Earth side from you then they actually do have "their a**es up and their heads down" relative to you.  So no matter what side is right, your comment is true.