Put a flat earthier into space

[What A Waster]

I'm not sure on any of those points.

I think you'd remember if you'd found a like minded soul.

 

[Nobby]

How?



They aren't always in a fixed position. They move just like the sun and moon do.

If you mean so called constellations as we're told. They are simply fixed points of light and move together.

I can and have.

So to sum up your globe. You can't provide any evidence to prove it is what you say it is....right?


Criticise who?
I've said many many many many many times that it's easy to believe a global Earth because that's what we were schooled in. Including myself.
If you take me calling it nonsense as if it's a personal attack on you then I'm afraid that's your issue, not mine.

Yep but not from my side.

What evidence have you provided the earth is not a globe. Not your vague comment that water is flat, actual quantitative evidence that can be tested and verified by other people

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'd listen to anyone who went against the grain if they could prove what they said.

What proof do you have of a spinning globe is a space vacuum?

If someone came out tomorrow with a completely new view of the cosmos which was scrutinised and verified I'd jump ship no bother.

Of course you would if it was put out as official. And this is my argument.

If this new world view was investigated, pulled apart an found to be water tight then no problem.

How would you know it was watertight?

Human understanding would have been improved upon and I'm all for that.

That depends on what the understanding is. Stories of fact or fiction and how you find the difference if you have no physical means.

Now I know your retort will be along the lines of, who scrutinises, can they be trusted etc.....I can't answer that for you as I actually believe there are people out there with a knowledge of the world far greater than you and I and and that there isn't some mass conspiracy going on.

If there are people out there with the knowledge of the real world then we need to be sure of it.
Anyone can tell a story. Any clever person can make up a story pertaining to what is observed. If challenged over periods of time then each challenged part is altered to fit, as has been for long enough with a global spinning Earth and so called space. In my honest opinion.

I think you'd remember if you'd found a like minded soul.

Maybe, maybe not.
None if it should matter to you.

What evidence have you provided the earth is not a globe. Not your vague comment that water is flat, actual quantitative evidence that can be tested and verified by other people

It can be tested and verified by anyone capable of observing and using simple tools..

 

[What A Waster]

What proof do you have of a spinning globe is a space vacuum?


Of course you would if it was put out as official. And this is my argument.

How would you know it was watertight?

That depends on what the understanding is. Stories of fact or fiction and how you find the difference if you have no physical means.

If there are people out there with the knowledge of the real world then we need to be sure of it.
Anyone can tell a story. Any clever person can make up a story pertaining to what is observed. If challenged over periods of time then each challenged part is altered to fit, as has been for long enough with a global spinning Earth and so called space. In my honest opinion.

Maybe, maybe not.
None if it should matter to you.

Don't you think there's a slight chance you're completely wrong considering nobody else shares your views. Not even the other flatties agree with you.

 

[Nobby]

It can be tested and verified by anyone capable of observing and using simple tools..

So to reiterate, the central plank of your argument is easy to prove, but you haven't taken the time to prove it?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Don't you think there's a slight chance you're completely wrong considering nobody else shares your views. Not even the other flatties agree with you.

Absolutely. There could be a massive chance I'm absolutely wrong on many aspects of my musing. It's why I don't hand it out as factual.

Do you think there's any chance of your spinning globe not being factual?

So to reiterate, the central plank of your argument is easy to prove, but you haven't taken the time to prove it?

Prove it to who? You?

 

[payne]

What proof do you have of a spinning globe is a space vacuum?


Of course you would if it was put out as official. And this is my argument.

How would you know it was watertight?

That depends on what the understanding is. Stories of fact or fiction and how you find the difference if you have no physical means.

If there are people out there with the knowledge of the real world then we need to be sure of it.
Anyone can tell a story. Any clever person can make up a story pertaining to what is observed. If challenged over periods of time then each challenged part is altered to fit, as has been for long enough with a global spinning Earth and so called space. In my honest opinion.

Maybe, maybe not.
None if it should matter to you.

It can be tested and verified by anyone capable of observing and using simple tools..

Exactly as I thought. Global conspiracy spanning thousands of years.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Exactly as I thought. Global conspiracy spanning thousands of years.

Is it?

 

[payne]

So to reiterate, the central plank of your argument is easy to prove, but you haven't taken the time to prove it?

It's not factual but everything he's against is factual. In his opinion obviously.

 

[Nobby]

Prove it to who? You?

To anyone, a simple yes or no will do

 

[payne]

Is it?

Yeah only explanation now that spinning earth globe near vacuum wobbling tilt fireball is off the table.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It's not factual but everything he's against is factual. In his opinion obviously.

Water level is factual.

To anyone, a simple yes or no will do

Yep, plenty of people know it to be a truth.
Water level is an excellent starting point.

 

[legend7]

We are told to believe the Earth spins and the atmosphere and everything in it spins in unison.
This is why they argue a hovering helicopter doesn't see the solid ground moving beneath it because it's supposedly carried along in unison with the atmosphere in friction with the Earth.

And then they use coriolis effect to argue Earth's spin.
And then Brian Cox uses a pilot and jet to stop the sun setting by catching up with the Earth's spin
.
The contradictions are literally off the scale.

You can do the same experiments yourself. You do not need me to show you. I tried to explain what to do but was waved away so I accepted that as nobody wanting to go against the grain, which is fair enough.

I can't show anyone.
People can either do it all for themselves or go with water curving around a ball and staying on by magical gravity.
Anyone that really wants to test it out to show level can do so.
Anyone that wants to pretend the curve over distance makes it look flat can also do so.

The thing is, what can be done on a big scale can also be done on a small scale.
Water adhering to a ball on a small scale is impossible just as it is on a large scale.

But....I mean we're shown a big blue marble in space so water has to stay on....right? Because none of it is CGI....right?
None of it are composites....right?

ANyway, you get my meaning and if you don't....no worries.


It wo n't prove me wrong.
It would prove you wrong.


You have no clue what I do or don't do but you can certainly think what you like.


For what purpose?
You're seeing no curve.

I'm sure you can do them....right?
Let me know how you get on.

They have been done and documented by numerous people. Do you have any evidence even from others that shows your findings?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

They have been done and documented by numerous people. Do you have any evidence even from others that shows your findings?

What's been done and documented by numerous people?

Also, my findings for what? Water level?........Yes.

 

[What A Waster]

Absolutely. There could be a massive chance I'm absolutely wrong on many aspects of my musing. It's why I don't hand it out as factual.

Do you think there's any chance of your spinning globe not being factual?

Prove it to who? You?

You don't hand it out as factual, but you do say all the facts are wrong.

I don't think there's any chance of the spinning globe being incorrect.

 

[Nobby]

What's been done and documented by numerous people?

Also, my findings for what? Water level?........Yes.

Ok care to share your findings?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You don't hand it out as factual, but you do say all the facts are wrong.

Facts cannot be wrong. Facts are facts.

I don't think there's any chance of the spinning globe being incorrect.

Then you have no need to argue with me. It's pointless.

Ok care to share your findings?

Share my findings with what?

 

[fyl2u]

Water level is factual.

Not when you haven't tested it properly with equipment accurate enough to notice the difference between flat and curved to the degree expected according to the globe stance.

 

[payne]

quite a nice video here for science people

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Not when you haven't tested it properly with equipment accurate enough to notice the difference between flat and curved to the degree expected according to the globe stance.

If people want to go down to unobservable levels and come up with figures that are unprovable then I can't argue with it. It's pointless.

If people can't see water is level and conforms to any container is is put into and will not conform to the exterior in mass of objects and wish to believe water is quite happy to do what it does , as we see it, thinking on a global spinning Earth, then go with that.
There's nothing I can say or do to change that mindset and nor do I care.
It's up to each individual to sit back and question or don't.