subgenius wrote:not sure what link you are following...but most of you guys are that way.
"Markedly different from a simple sphere or ellipsoid, the geoid is the mathematically 'true' shape of Earth. It represents a motionless global ocean but takes into account the effects of the Earth’s rotation, weight difference resulting from the position of mountains and ocean trenches, and uneven mass distribution and density variations in the planet’s interior. "
Well, by "you guys," I'm assuming you mean guys who actually study stuff to understand how it works rather than just link to a web page without understanding the information in it.
The geoid is not the actual shape of the earth. It's the shape the earth would have if you covered it with water. The shape is produced by the effect of gravity. The total effect is about plus or minus 100 meters. The images have to exaggerate the effect or you couldn't tell it was there.
Worse for your case, the geoid is low at the place where the land is highest -- the Himalayas. That means would pull the water level down at that point. So, if you try to cover the earth with water, you need more water than an idealized sphere in order to cover the highest mountain. So, add something like 50 meters to Mt. Everest and you're good to go.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
subgenius wrote:<snip> The graphics posted have sufficiently illustrated the inadequacy of previously posted "estimations" for how the earth may or may not have been covered by water.
The effect of gravity on the geoid is plus or minus about 100 meters. That means that, in the animation you link to, it shows the effect of gravity as plus or minus 700,000 meters. The height of Mt. Everest above sea level is under 9,000 meters.
Look at the images. Can you spot Mt. Everest? Increase it's height by 1/90th. That's it. The departure from a perfect sphere is insignificant for purposes of the calculations being discussed here.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
subgenius wrote:<snip> The graphics posted have sufficiently illustrated the inadequacy of previously posted "estimations" for how the earth may or may not have been covered by water.
The effect of gravity on the geoid is plus or minus about 100 meters. That means that, in the animation you link to, it shows the effect of gravity as plus or minus 700,000 meters. The height of Mt. Everest above sea level is under 9,000 meters.
Look at the images. Can you spot Mt. Everest? Increase it's height by 1/90th. That's it. The departure from a perfect sphere is insignificant for purposes of the calculations being discussed here.
+100....
But it won't sink in.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
Well, even a crank sees issues with the theory of the Big Bang. In any case, the theory isn't any more scientific the Creationism or the Flood. It simply has to do with who believes what.
All you are demonstrating is an ignorance about how science works. Neither creationism nor the flood are supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence. Just because you find a crank that disagrees with the big bang theory doesn't make everything just a matter of belief.
Fact has nothing to do with vast amounts of "circumstantial" evidence. Fact is founded on the truth. If GOD exists, then what evolutionists and uniformitarians THINK, BELIEVE, DETERMINE has little validity. At the very best they are misreading the data, and evidence based on their OPINION that even if God rxists, He must work through NATURAL processes. There is more than one crank who disagrees with the Big Bang. God spoke and the universe came to be. Well, perhaps God said, "Bang!"
LittleNipper wrote: Fact has nothing to do with vast amounts of "circumstantial" evidence. Fact is founded on the truth. If GOD exists, then what evolutionists and uniformitarians THINK, BELIEVE, DETERMINE has little validity. At the very best they are misreading the data, and evidence based on their OPINION that even if God rxists, He must work through NATURAL processes. There is more than one crank who disagrees with the Big Bang. God spoke and the universe came to be. Well, perhaps God said, "Bang!"
I'll go with vast amounts of evidence over an imaginary sky magician any day.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
DrW wrote:It is scientifically accepted is that Earth has been pretty much completely covered by water more than once. That water, however, was in the solid state during these "Snowball Earth" epochs.
ironic
DrW wrote:As for liquid water, there is no evidence that the Earth has ever been completely covered with liquid water, especially as recently as 4,800 years ago.
chronology is another argument, let us stick with this one first....
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
The effect of gravity on the geoid is plus or minus about 100 meters. That means that, in the animation you link to, it shows the effect of gravity as plus or minus 700,000 meters. The height of Mt. Everest above sea level is under 9,000 meters.
Look at the images. Can you spot Mt. Everest? Increase it's height by 1/90th. That's it. The departure from a perfect sphere is insignificant for purposes of the calculations being discussed here.
+100....
But it won't sink in.
speaking of sinking, from Hudson's citation:
"This video is no April’s fool joke: Earth really is shaped like a potato. However, the shape that you see here is, um, slightly exaggerated to highlight its irregularities. Another caveat: what is depicted here is not the shape of the planet, but rather the shape of an idealized sea-level surface extending around the entire globe—a surface that Earth scientists call the geoid. ... The geoid is not to be confused with anomalies due to the topography of the land – although it is affected in part by it. Also—and here is where things get really tricky—it is not to be confused with the actual sea level.
Wait a minute, you say, but isn’t the ocean supposed to be at sea level by definition? Except for relatively small perturbations such as waves or tides, you say, shouldn’t the surface be exactly horizontal (that is, perpendicular to the gravitational field) everywhere? Isn’t that, after all, what "sea level" means? Yes, to some approximation. However, the oceans are not homogenous. Differences of salinity and temperature make them more or less dense. Moreover, the Earth’s rotation produces forces that keep the oceans in constant motion.
Just like the water in a river is not all at the same level—after all, it flows to the sea for a reason—the water in the ocean also has differences in height. ... The deviations of the geoid from the simplified, ellipsoidal model of the Earth are substantial: they range from 100 meters below (dark blue in the video) to 80 meters above (yellow), Rummel says."
it seems odd...hmmmm.... but neither of you seemingly understood what the article stated.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Why did you cut off your quote just before the statement that the effect of the geoid was exaggerated 7000 times in the animation? Lets see, if we did that with a person, they'd be 42,000 feet tall. I suppose if someone made an animation of that, you'd conclude that humans are taller than Mount Everest.
For those working within certain fields, the effects of the geoid are significant. They are not significant for measuring how much water would be needed to cover the entire earth. Mt. Everest is just under 9000 meters. 100 meters represents about 1% of the height of Mt. Everest. In addition, because gravity would pull the water down at Mt. Everest relative to other places on the earth, it will take MORE water to cover the highest point than if you ignored the gravitational effects.
You're literally straining at a gnat.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
However, the shape that you see here is, um, slightly exaggerated to highlight its irregularities.
The deviations of the geoid from the simplified, ellipsoidal model of the Earth are substantial: they range from 100 meters below (dark blue in the video) to 80 meters above (yellow), Rummel says."
100 meter to 80 meter deviation is so slight that it is back to the comparison of the surface variance of an billiard ball.
The visualizations are exaggerated for effect.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
LittleNipper wrote: If GOD exists, then what evolutionists and uniformitarians THINK, BELIEVE, DETERMINE has little validity.
A laconic phrase from the time of the invasion of Philip II of Macedon. With key Greek city-states in submission, he turned his attention to Sparta and sent a message: "If I win this war, you will be slaves forever." In another version, Philip proclaims: "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city." According to both accounts, the Spartan ephors sent back a one word reply: "If" (αἴκα). Subsequently both Philip and Alexander avoided Sparta entirely.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
