Originally posted by FreakyKBHOk, just not a globe. Can you be a bit more specific? How round do you think it is? It is well known it is not a perfect sphere since it spins and that makes a journey around the equator about 60 miles longer than a journey from the south pole over to the north pole and back down to the south.
We agree: it is round.
It's just not a globe.
But I digress.
Answer the questions.
So what is your estimate of that difference? We say 60 miles. What do you say?
Originally posted by sonhouseHave you ever seen a phonographic record?
Ok, just not a globe. Can you be a bit more specific? How round do you think it is? It is well known it is not a perfect sphere since it spins and that makes a journey around the equator about 60 miles longer than a journey from the south pole over to the north pole and back down to the south.
So what is your estimate of that difference? We say 60 miles. What do you say?
78, 45 or 33 1/3 RPM, any of the three will do.
As the record rests on the platter, it is held in place by the center spindle.
Imagine that area immediately around the center of the record is the North Pole.
The rest of the continents are centered around the North Pole, very similar to what we see on the United Nations flag (not to scale, of course).
Despite the earth's shape being similar to the shape of the record of your choice, it is definitely not completely similar in all other regards.
For instance, it isn't only seven miles thick despite our inability to drill any further down.
It also does not rotate: everything else rotates around it.
And, except in some parts of the world, it is not mostly black with grooves.
Now, can you answer the questions?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo you are back to the flat Earth deal. You just move the goalpost to redefine 'round' as being like a record. You figure there is this vast international conspiracy that for instance, we can't drill more than 7 miles deep not for the real reason but for your fantasy they punch through and are staring at open space.
Have you ever seen a phonographic record?
78, 45 or 33 1/3 RPM, any of the three will do.
As the record rests on the platter, it is held in place by the center spindle.
Imagine that area immediately around the center of the record is the North Pole.
The rest of the continents are centered around the North Pole, very similar to what we see on the United ...[text shortened]... e parts of the world, it is not mostly black with grooves.
Now, can you answer the questions?
So in your fantasy world, why does it get so hot even a couple miles deep?
Originally posted by sonhouseYou're slipping away, aren't you?
So you are back to the flat Earth deal. You just move the goalpost to redefine 'round' as being like a record. You figure there is this vast international conspiracy that for instance, we can't drill more than 7 miles deep not for the real reason but for your fantasy they punch through and are staring at open space.
So in your fantasy world, why does it get so hot even a couple miles deep?
How much of a stretch is it to call a record round?
I know you like to glom onto the phrase vast conspiracy as though it holds some magical power: if something can be labeled as such, no further argument or consideration is possible or necessary.
How many people does it take to consider the two questions put to you, which you continue to evade?
Can that be considered a vast conspiracy, your refusal to answer those two questions?
Why are these questions so difficult for you to answer?
Is it because you had some indirect job to perform and now feel guilt for being duped?
Just answer the questions, sonhouse.
Consider the vast conspiracy after you've answered the questions.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm done here. I don't need to answer your insults. You need to supply specifics. For instance, all I got about the 1947 Antarctica expedition is look at Admiral Bird or something.
You're slipping away, aren't you?
How much of a stretch is it to call a record round?
I know you like to glom onto the phrase [b]vast conspiracy as though it holds some magical power: if something can be labeled as such, no further argument or consideration is possible or necessary.
How many people does it take to consider the two questions put to ...[text shortened]... questions, sonhouse.
Consider the vast conspiracy after you've answered the questions.[/b]
Show me a link where he says they could not go around Antarctica, for instance.
Show me a link saying why we can't drill past 7 miles that has nothing to do with our technology insufficiencies.
Show me why we can see past where we should across the horizon, and the fact you seem to tout as to seeing 40 miles or so is a long way from being able to see the Eiffel tower from a mountain in the US using a telescope. We should see it if we were on a flat Earth but you have no answers for any of that. Outside of that, this is the end of my participation in your fantasy,
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm done here. I don't need to answer your insults.
I'm done here. I don't need to answer your insults. You need to supply specifics. For instance, all I got about the 1947 Antarctica expedition is look at Admiral Bird or something.
Show me a link where he says they could not go around Antarctica, for instance.
Show me a link saying why we can't drill past 7 miles that has nothing to do with our techno ...[text shortened]... o answers for any of that. Outside of that, this is the end of my participation in your fantasy,
Are you just kidding or do you expect to be taken seriously?
Go back and do a quick perusal of the entries prior to this one and count how many times you’ve called me an orifice at/near the anal area or something along the lines of being stuffed with feces.
The closest thing to an insult from me to you is my pointing out your fragile grasp on keeping concepts and positions clear.
After all, how many times did you attribute to me positions held in the globe model?
Or accuse me of playing loose and fast with definitions because I used the term “round” to describe a record?
In a word, your perspective on things is bizarre.
You need to supply specifics. For instance, all I got about the 1947 Antarctica expedition is look at Admiral Bird or something.
I’ve supplied a plethora of specifics on quite a few topics.
Byrd declared the land mass as beyond measure and larger than the US.
That’s a bit at odds with the globe model, yes?
Show me a link where he says they could not go around Antarctica, for instance.
Nah.
You can surf, right?
Show me a link saying why we can't drill past 7 miles that has nothing to do with our technology insufficiencies.
Huh?
Show me why we can see past where we should across the horizon, and the fact you seem to tout as to seeing 40 miles or so is a long way from being able to see the Eiffel tower from a mountain in the US using a telescope.
Have you been drinking?
This nearly 50 word run-on sentence makes literally zero sense.
What are you laboring to say here?
We should see it if we were on a flat Earth but you have no answers for any of that. Outside of that, this is the end of my participation in your fantasy,
Can you use logic without harming yourself or others?
Painful to think you might be driving a car somewhere.
Forget a plane or globe earth for a few second.
Imagine you and me standing face to face within arm’s length of each other.
We’re both about the same height.
Now move ten feet away.
Your depth perception will give you a good estimation of my height from your new position, as you are visually observing the space filled by my body in relation to the distance between us.
If we were to continue moving apart ten feet at time, at some point your depth perception would fail to give you the necessary information which would help you determine my height accurately.
After repeated separations, eventually the space filled by my body would be so small from your perspective, I would become indistinguishable with the skyline.
A good set of binoculars would bring me back into view but at some point you would have to switch to a telescope in order to see me, with minimal changes to the image field.
The distance between the Eiffel Tower and Étretat (on the water) is ~114 miles.
Even without obstructions between, it is not likely the 984’ tall tower would be visible from that point, let alone across the ocean thousands of miles away.
Thankfully, we don’t have to imagine viewing something over 3500 miles from the US: we can see the exact same principle played out on any level surface literally anywhere on the planet.
As I’ve stated several times, from my vantage point just west of Cleveland, I am able to see the city in its near entirety (west side only, obviously) from 20+ miles away.
Additionally, I am able to see much further up the North Coast to an old power plant with two stacks--- both completely visible with the buildings below them distinguishable--- over 30 miles away.
From my observation point and at my height, the globe would have dropped off by well over 500’... and yet they remain clearly in view.
With a good set of binoculars, I’d be able to see even further.
How?
Because the earth is not curving, and therefore not a globe.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFrom my observation point and at my height, the globe would have dropped off by well over 500’... and yet they remain clearly in view.
[b]I'm done here. I don't need to answer your insults.
Are you just kidding or do you expect to be taken seriously?
Go back and do a quick perusal of the entries prior to this one and count how many times you’ve called me an orifice at/near the anal area or something along the lines of being stuffed with feces.
The closest thing to an insult from m ...[text shortened]... be able to see even further.
How?
Because the earth is not curving, and therefore not a globe.[/b]
Show me the math for that equation. I'm intrigued.
Originally posted by Proper KnobHere's a pretty accurate calculator which determines the amount of loss based upon the observer's vantage elevation, the distance between the two points.
[b]From my observation point and at my height, the globe would have dropped off by well over 500’... and yet they remain clearly in view.
Show me the math for that equation. I'm intrigued.[/b]
It's not enough to take 'distance times itself with the product multiplied by eight inches and then divided by 12 inches' to establish the loss: that formula does not take into consideration the eye's view.
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
