Put a flat earthier into space

[Nobby]

Density, vibration and frequency.

That isn't an answer to my question.

It is 3 random words which are neither energy or forces

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That isn't an answer to my question.

It is 3 random words which are neither energy or forces

To you they are 3 random words. To me they mean everything about Earth and why everything works as it does.

 

[Nobby]

To you they are 3 random words. To me they mean everything about Earth and why everything works as it does.

How you said it was shaped by energy causing force to be applied but those words have no link to energy or force

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How you said it was shaped by energy causing force to be applied but those words have no link to energy or force

If you think they don't then go with what you think.

 

[nahwee]

It is an answer and I know many people that's proven water to be level and flat.
You know it is and so does everyone else on here....etc.
The major issue is in going with the water curves mindset because you're basically told to do so.

You've basically been told to abandon your own logical senses in favour of utter gunk.
I was in exactly that same set up a few decades ago.

It wasn’t an answer it was a response.

Can you direct me to any information where third parties have attempted to confirm that water is flat?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It wasn’t an answer it was a response.

Can you direct me to any information where third parties have attempted to confirm that water is flat?

You'll need to do that yourself if you really want to know.
Personally you can prove it to yourself but I have a feeling that seems to be a no option for you, so basically just stick to your globe and curved water. It's easier.

 

[Nobby]

It wasn’t an answer it was a response.

Can you direct me to any information where third parties have attempted to confirm that water is flat?

Looks like he is just in stalling and not answering mode at the minute.

Questions must be getting too difficult?

 

[nahwee]

You'll need to do that yourself if you really want to know.
Personally you can prove it to yourself but I have a feeling that seems to be a no option for you, so basically just stick to your globe and curved water. It's easier.

Is there a sentence missing here,
‘and leave me alone’?

It’s a simple question, for the 7th!!, time since Friday, do you have any information on third parties carrying out experiments on how level water is?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Is there a sentence missing here,
‘and leave me alone’?

It’s a simple question, for the 7th!!, time since Friday, do you have any information on third parties carrying out experiments on how level water is?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Yes.

Looks like he is just in stalling and not answering mode at the minute.

Questions must be getting too difficult?

The questions are easy. My answers seem difficult for you.

 

[nahwee]

Yes.

Hooray!!!

Are you prepared to share it with us?

 

[BigPete]

This still going on ffs

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Hooray!!!

Are you prepared to share it with us?

No need, you can go and do it all yourself. It's not difficult.
Any rational person can go and prove all of this to themselves.

This still going on ffs

No.

 

[nahwee]

No need, you can go and do it all yourself. It's not difficult.
Any rational person can go and prove all of this to themselves.

Again, not an answer.

Are you prepared to share this information with us?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Again, not an answer.

Are you prepared to share this information with us?

No need. You can prove this to yourself.
You can prove a lot of stuff to yourself that goes against the global Earth/space shenanigans but it is all down to you. I can't help. It has to be you.

 

[DaveH]

There's no hypocrisy.


No.
You're concentrating on the nath because it's the easiest thing you think you can use to make it look like I base my argument against a globe directly on it.
Now don;t get me wrong here. You can use whatever you feel you think can batter me down but just remember it does not give any credence to your spinning globe. You carry on though, I'm fine with it.


No. You put forward an Earth like that because you refused to understand my take on it. I explained it all and have no need to keep repeating that just because you and others decide I have it wrong.
But don't mind me, you carry on if you think it suits your argument.

The curve on your globe is far from minor if we go by the near 8 inches per mile squared set up which you first denied and now show up a graph of exactly that.
I even recall you liking posts of people who were saying it was only 8 inches per mile no matter how many miles.
That's until you found out differently, so I'm all good with it.

You keep to the bath but remember there is no water curve in a bath no matter how much you pretend it's so minor over your global spinning Earth.
People are just coaxed into taking leave of their own senses.
I understand it because I once was coaxed into exactly that.

Nope.

Nope.


Why?
Because the water curve is fiction. The water if flat and level and will remain level even if you tipped the bath up a little.
It would remain level if you tipped up a bowl a little.
It would remain level and flat if you sloped a swimming pool from deep to shallow, which we all know is a reality.

We can put this into simple perspective.

There's not a way in hell you can sow any reality to your spinning globe. None.

Technically speaking the 8 inches per mile squared is wrong. It gives a close approximation over relatively short distances. I provided no graph but your rule does hold for short distances like a bath.

So you say that my figure is wrong for a bath. Curious, when you accept the maths that gives a close approximation over 50 miles you flat our reject maths over a very short distance.

What figure is it?

Why does the maths work for one of your arguments but exactly the same maths work against it?

 

[nahwee]

No need. You can prove this to yourself.
You can prove a lot of stuff to yourself that goes against the global Earth/space shenanigans but it is all down to you. I can't help. It has to be you.

Again, not an answer.

Are you prepared to share this information?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Technically speaking the 8 inches per mile squared is wrong. It gives a close approximation over relatively short distances. I provided no graph but your rule does hold for short distances like a bath.

Short distances?
I've never went over 50 miles so don't bother using that argument.
And you can't help jumping in that bath, can you.

So you say that my figure is wrong for a bath. Curious, when you accept the maths that gives a close approximation over 50 miles you flat our reject maths over a very short distance.

Your figure is wrong because the bath water is level, so you have no figures to use.
You're going on the assumption that water curves at rest. It does not.
You really need to try and get out of the 50 mile, 1666 feet drop of your globe and the saying that buildings can clearly be seen in Chicago from lake Michigan as we're told by the news channels. Unless they're telling lies on this and you really can't see it.

What do you think?

What figure is it?

Why does the maths work for one of your arguments but exactly the same maths work against it?

The maths is absolutely not needed for a bath. You are welcome to argue that bath water curves if you want to and are welcome to give minute figures if you want to.

However, we are dealing with miles of water and the drop which you clearly understand would be the case on a globe of the size that's made out.
Trying to argue it goes skewed over long distances of over 100 miles is neither here nor there when we are dealing with 50 miles.

 

[monkeytassle]

A cell resistance force against other like cells, potentially.
A central energy that creates a stacked set up of all matter pertaining to the density of it under pressured layers from what we perceive as solids to liquids to gases.

A cell.

Does you cell spin?

 

[fyl2u]

Short distances?
I've never went over 50 miles so don't bother using that argument.
And you can't help jumping in that bath, can you.


Your figure is wrong because the bath water is level, so you have no figures to use.
You're going on the assumption that water curves at rest. It does not.
You really need to try and get out of the 50 mile, 1666 feet drop of your globe and the saying that buildings can clearly be seen in Chicago from lake Michigan as we're told by the news channels. Unless they're telling lies on this and you really can't see it.

What do you think?

The maths is absolutely not needed for a bath. You are welcome to argue that bath water curves if you want to and are welcome to give minute figures if you want to.

However, we are dealing with miles of water and the drop which you clearly understand would be the case on a globe of the size that's made out.
Trying to argue it goes skewed over long distances of over 100 miles is neither here nor there when we are dealing with 50 miles.

The point he's making is that your experiment is flawed if you're trying to use a bath to prove that water is flat, because your method of measuring that flatness is not accurate enough to be able to measure whether it is truly flat as stated by your own narrative or actually curved by the amount it would be if our narrative were correct about it being curved.

Our narrative says that "IF the world were an oblate spheroid of the size we think it is, then over the length of a bath we should see a curve of 0.000176mm."

Your own narrative says that "IF the world were a cell, then over the length of a bath we should not see a curve at all, no matter how small."

Therefore if you or I or anyone else wanted to find out honestly whether water in a bath conformed to your narrative or ours, then we would need a measuring device capable of detecting whether or not there was actually a curve of 0.000176mm.

If a curve of 0.000176mm was observed, then it would be evidence that water does indeed curve.

If no curve of even that small amount was observed, then it would be evidence that water does NOT curve.

There's no point getting a bubble-based spirit level, holding it over the bath and saying "yes that's straight" because literally nobody is trying to suggest that such a device would be capable of detecting a curve of 0.000176mm. To prove that the water is flat and that there is no curve of 0.000176mm you would need a much more accurate measuring device.

Until you use a device capable of detecting whether or not there is a curve of 0.000176mm, you're lying to yourself and to everyone else about having done an experiment that proves bathwater is flat, not curved.

 

[legend7]

It would remain level if you tipped up a bowl a little.
It would remain level and flat if you sloped a swimming pool from deep to shallow, which we all know is a reality.

Yet when I said it would be deeper in the low part of your lemon squeezer world than at the top area because water would be flat you said it wouldn't?