When will RE Community Accept Defeat?

Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.

Even Mt. Everest represents roughly 0.14% compared to Earth's radius.

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 22, 2019, 04:21:03 PM

Yup you understand, that's what the surface of a sphere earth would do (with gravity pulling to center and rotation) to all non mountianous rocky areas . After a few good rains (millions of years ago), the surface would be curved and smooth with mountians sticking up. But our world doesn't look like that. Why?

Do you understand the concept of tectonic activity and that it's still an ongoing process?

Oh, that's no big deal for the force of gravity pullling to center (power to make spheres) and the Coriolis effect. The surface of a sphere earth would regenerate after a few good rains and spins.

I guess a baseball, basketball, golf ball, volley ball, etc. are not spheres.

Who knew?

Quote from: markjo on August 22, 2019, 04:55:36 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 22, 2019, 04:21:03 PM

Yup you understand, that's what the surface of a sphere earth would do (with gravity pulling to center and rotation) to all non mountianous rocky areas . After a few good rains (millions of years ago), the surface would be curved and smooth with mountians sticking up. But our world doesn't look like that. Why?

Do you understand the concept of tectonic activity and that it's still an ongoing process?

Oh, that's no big deal for the force of gravity pullling to center (power to make spheres) and the Coriolis effect. The surface of a sphere earth would regenerate after a few good rains and spins.

Is the moon a sphere?  Looks spherical to me.  But it is also covered in craters.  How can it be?

I guess a baseball, basketball, golf ball, volley ball, etc. are not spheres.

Who knew?

Yes, not sphere Earths.  They're not made from rock, earth and water.

Quote from: markjo on August 22, 2019, 04:55:36 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 22, 2019, 04:21:03 PM

Yup you understand, that's what the surface of a sphere earth would do (with gravity pulling to center and rotation) to all non mountianous rocky areas . After a few good rains (millions of years ago), the surface would be curved and smooth with mountians sticking up. But our world doesn't look like that. Why?

Do you understand the concept of tectonic activity and that it's still an ongoing process?

Oh, that's no big deal for the force of gravity pullling to center (power to make spheres) and the Coriolis effect. The surface of a sphere earth would regenerate after a few good rains and spins.

Okay, I'll take that as a no, you don't understand tectonic activity, gravity, erosion, centrifugal force or much of anything else.

Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.

Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.

Quote from: Crutchwater on August 22, 2019, 04:57:19 PM

Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.

Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.

Someone doesn't understand fractions and how small a few thousand feet is compared to a few thousand miles.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on August 22, 2019, 05:05:03 PM

I guess a baseball, basketball, golf ball, volley ball, etc. are not spheres.

Who knew?

Yes, not sphere Earths.  They're not made from rock, earth and water.

Mt. Everest is 0.14% of Earth radius.

The seams on a basketball, at .5mm deep, are 0.4% of the ball radius.

Earth is curved and smoother than a basketball.

Quote from: Crutchwater on August 22, 2019, 04:57:19 PM

Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.

Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.

There is. But you wouldn't expect a topographical map to show that. AGAIN, elevation is shown based on sea level. Just because you don't understand the subject doesn't mean everyone else is ignorant. But thanks for the humor!

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 22, 2019, 05:14:37 PM

Quote from: Crutchwater on August 22, 2019, 04:57:19 PM

Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.

Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.

There is. But you wouldn't expect a topographical map to show that. AGAIN, elevation is shown based on sea level. Just because you don't understand the subject doesn't mean everyone else is ignorant. But thanks for the humor!

The Maps elevation is established from sea level.  And no, there is no a 300 mile bulge at center. The center of the USA is the same height above the East Coast as it is the West Coast and it's nowhere near 300 miles. Nor can you prove so. You simply think there should be, but that's not the case.  But you're welcome to disagree with stuff and things you cannot really prove to fit your theory. You argument will not add the needed curvature.

How do you know all these things, Mr. Terra?


What is your primary source for these "facts" you have presented?

How do you know all these things, Mr. Terra?


What is your primary source for these "facts" you have presented?

I’m curious too. Where do your measurements come from?  For instance, how did you arrive at the 300 mile bulge number?

The Maps elevation is established from sea level. 

Right. And sea level is a curved datum.

And no, there is no a 300 mile bulge at center. The center of the USA is the same height above the East Coast as it is the West Coast and it's nowhere near 300 miles.

Nor would 300-mile elevations be expected. The central US, at roughly 1,000 feet elevation, is about 0.005% further from the center of the earth than the east and west coasts.

Nor can you prove so. You simply think there should be, but that's not the case.  But you're welcome to disagree with stuff and things you cannot really prove to fit your theory.

** Sigh ** You toss the word 'prove' around as though you know what you're talking about. You don't.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

You argument will not add the needed curvature.

Nor will yours remove it. Observations and measurements, however, show that it is there.

Quote from: Crutchwater on August 22, 2019, 04:57:19 PM

Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.

Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.

You might want to check this link out.  Don't worry, there's plenty for you to cherry pick:
https://ourplnt.com/earth-smooth-billiard-ball/

Quote from: frenat on August 22, 2019, 05:36:44 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 22, 2019, 05:14:37 PM

Quote from: Crutchwater on August 22, 2019, 04:57:19 PM

Given the size of the globe, the non-mountainous areas you speak of are, indeed, curved and smooth.

Sure they are, just like there is a 300 mile curvature bulge over the USA.

There is. But you wouldn't expect a topographical map to show that. AGAIN, elevation is shown based on sea level. Just because you don't understand the subject doesn't mean everyone else is ignorant. But thanks for the humor!

The Maps elevation is established from sea level.  And no, there is no a 300 mile bulge at center. The center of the USA is the same height above the East Coast as it is the West Coast and it's nowhere near 300 miles. Nor can you prove so. You simply think there should be, but that's not the case.  But you're welcome to disagree with stuff and things you cannot really prove to fit your theory. You argument will not add the needed curvature.

And again your prove only your ignorance. While there is 300 miles of curvature, it is NOT 300 miles higher. The land is the height above sea level shown on topographic maps. That sea level curves around the globe as shown by WGS-84 or by any geodetic surveyor. You still seem to not understand the subject you argue against. Just because you choose to remain ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is.

And I KNOW so as I have worked with radio and RADAR from both ground and airborne platforms and in ALL cases the range depended only on the height of the emitter. Increasing power did NOT add range. I've also tested multiple times with ships and land over the horizon and magnification from binoculars or a telescope did NOT bring them back but just a small increase in elevation did.

Wow
A lot of stupid has happened over a few hrs.

As pointed out
Ill simplify and summarize

1
Plata claims globe is impossible because after time the globe would be smooth parts and rocky parts then proceeds to prove it true/ possible with a topographic map.
He is literally rdisputing that rock mountains dont look like mountains.
And sandy deserts dont look like deserts.

2
claims earth not a globe because topographic map doesnt show the buldge, not realizing that the elevations are taken in relation to sea level, which follows the buldge.
Guy probably thinks he can also run away from his shadow.

3
Not understanding inches ft and miles.
Although all distances are represented by numbers.
The units do matterif you want to compare different sets.

4  He references some 300 mile number which must be based on a distance. Yet he has refused to say how he knows the distance between two points on earth. Remember, after being repeatedly asked what the distance was on his flat plane between Miami and Boston, he always refused to answer or side stepped.

So the question to Plat is, where did the 300 mile number come from? How was it derived? What tools, maps, were used to come up with that mysterious 'bulge' number? We need the evidence, not just you making up numbers.

Quote from: Crutchwater on August 22, 2019, 02:12:06 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 22, 2019, 01:28:29 PM

The Forces that create and maintain a spherical world has failed the Globe Earth Community.

Gravity, an alleged force pulling to center of mass creating an alleged sphere with Earth’s alleged (centrifugal force) rotation has yet to fill in areas below sea level and other impression areas on this Earth. Rolling hills with top soil and clay base could not exist on a Globe Earth. With such forces existing with rain, the lands surface would soon be shaped to a curved surface after a few heavy rains . It’s much like clay on a potter’s wheel, it easily curves.

Look around, do you see evidence of a potter’s wheel?  No, you don’t .  Why?

Do you have any understanding of plate tectonics?

Volcanic activity?

maybe the power of erosion?


These are major contributors to the shape of the GLOBE surface.

I don't think you truly understand how your gravity would actually work with a spinning earth with water. It's not my problem. The guys who made this up didn't consider such a blunder. But now you have to justify observing the surface of a Plane Earth.  Have fun!

This has to be one of the most childish arguments for FE so far.

The Maps elevation is established from sea level.

Exactly.
From Sea Level.
Not from some imaginary flat plane.

And no, there is no a 300 mile bulge at center.

Sea level itself bulges all the way from east to west coast.

The center of the USA is the same height above the East Coast as it is the West Coast and it's nowhere near 300 miles.

Measure from sea level it isn't.
Measured from your imaginary underground flat line it is.

There is no practical use in measuring from imaginary underground flat plane so nobody is measuring from there.
Every geodesist measures from sea level.

Nor can you prove so.

You mean "Nor can you convince me so." ?
And there is no need to convince you.
Those facts don't depend on your belief.

You simply think there should be, but that's not the case.  But you're welcome to disagree with stuff and things you cannot really prove to fit your theory. You argument will not add the needed curvature.

The video number 5 in this playlist explains Datum.
(There are other useful videos in the list.)

that's what the surface of a sphere earth would do (with gravity pulling to center and rotation) to all non mountianous rocky areas . After a few good rains (millions of years ago), the surface would be curved and smooth with mountians sticking up. But our world doesn't look like that. Why?

Because that isn't what the surface of Earth would do, regardless of if it is spherical or round.
Again, the exact same argument would work for a flat Earth.
Why isn't your flat Earth flat?

I have already why the round Earth isn't.

And no, there is no a 300 mile bulge at center.

Prove it.
So far all you have provided are your empty words.
You have nothing to back you up.

You know what.  I'm now in the camp that believes Plat is a troll.  I've had forum discussions with mentally challenged conspiracy theorists before, and even they understand the concept of answering a direct question.  Plat's evasiveness only serves to allow him to produce additional absurd claims, which everyone here is eating up.

I think Plat is just playing around.  At least his cringey "memes" get some chuckles from my coworkers.

I think he's simply practicing his meme creation skills before stepping up to the big leagues of Facebook...

Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a water soaked (sub-soil) surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere.  The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.

Water goes to level and looks flat.
As jackB pointeed out, by your logic the hills would also be flat on a flat earth.

Are you saying hills dont exist?
Jack and jill didnt fall down no hill?

Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a muddy surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere.  The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.

I don't see a "muddy surface" there!

Again...

How do you know all these things?

What is your primary source for this information?

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 12:11:14 PM

Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a muddy surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere.  The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.

I don't see a "muddy surface" there!

Again...

How do you know all these things?

What is your primary source for this information?

How about a water soaked (sub-soil) surface?  That's easily formed into a sphere with gravity pulling to center with a centrifugal force in effect.

...and easily pushed up by tectonic activity, weathered down by the elements...

Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills.

Pure BS!
If you wish to assert such nonsense you will need to back it up.

You also need to explain how you magic downwards force for a FE somewhow allows it but RE doesn't.
Again, the same arguments apply for RE and FE.

That's easily formed into a sphere with gravity pulling to center with a centrifugal force in effect.

Again, PROVE IT!
So far all you are doing is repeating the same baseless assertions.

You have provided absolutely no justification for your claims.
Gravity pulls to the centre, not magically smooths.
Just like a hypothetical magical downwards force for a FE pulls downwards not magically flattens.
You need to have that force somehow transfer to a sideways force.
Like I explained before, the 2 ways for this to happen is a loose particle on the surface being subject to the normal reaction force which has a component going sideways down the hill which overcomes the frictional force or other forces holding it there; or for the pressure from the weight of the hill to exceed the yield stress of the material which then pushes it out sideways.

And again, this is the same for a RE and a FE.
The only difference will be the final shape.

If a RE demands a perfectly round Earth, then a FE demands a perfectly flat Earth.

Quote from: Crutchwater on August 23, 2019, 12:22:11 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 12:11:14 PM

Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a muddy surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere.  The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.

I don't see a "muddy surface" there!

Again...

How do you know all these things?

What is your primary source for this information?

How about a water soaked (sub-soil) surface?  That's easily formed into a sphere with gravity pulling to center with a centrifugal force in effect.

Ok

~70% water logged surface

https://images.app.goo.gl/bQoqJAq49SujLV5a9