Put a flat earthier into space

[legend7]

What's been done and documented by numerous people?

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

This young lad has sent a few balloons up himself.

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This young lad has sent a few balloons up himself.

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[DPTT]

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.

What would you expect to see with your bath experiment if the earth was a globe?

 

[legend7]

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.

Apart from your lemon squeezer world where it sticks to a slope that you yourself say is "gradual" and has no steps to contain liquid?
Still waiting on an explanation on that one.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What would you expect to see with your bath experiment if the earth was a globe?

You could build a skyscraper using water level.
You can set out a flat land using water level.

Think about buildings on your globe. Skyscrapers.
They would have to be closer at the bottom than the top to any adjacent skyscraper, even as small as it supposedly would be. The fact is you would be building unlevel.

The globe makes absolutely no logical sense...at all.

 

[DaveH]

Recently?
Who's verified what, recently?
We get told time and time again about all kinds of historical figures that supposedly did this and that and are regularly hit with them when arguing about global Earth as if it's a fact.

We also get told about the super technology of today that can basically sort out the wheat from the chaff yet still we're sent back into historical mindsets to supposedly rubber stamp supposed facts.



So there's no evidence for any religion or gods but billions of people believe it?
What's going on with that if you say there's no evidence?

You seem ok to believe everything else except for religion and belief's. Is this right?


You have no need to worry about what I do. You just need to prove what you hand out as factual and you haven't done anything of the sort.

We could argue the lakes and both put up videos which neither side will accept.
The reality is to do it yourself.


That depends on what you regard as a test. I've done many that most will simply laugh at or pass off as nonsense or simply overlook as the nutter doing silly things. I understand t5hat and I'm not going to go into what I do unless someone understands the simplicity of it against what we're told is complicated.


Your reliance is on this? Really?
Is it the experiment of because you think Hawking is narrating it?
I can bring you up a lake experiment. WIll you accept it or call it lies?


Do you seriously think anyone is going to listen to you if you go against the grain? I don;t think you're that naive to be fair.

So this idea that EM waves require a medium, did you come up with this yourself or did you learn that from somewhere?

 

[payne]

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.

Are you saying if one can't see it using only the naked eye than bets are off? Is sensitive equipment not allowed to take a better measurement?

 

[DaveH]

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

What tools?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Apart from your lemon squeezer world where it sticks to a slope that you yourself say is "gradual" and has no steps to contain liquid?
Still waiting on an explanation on that one.

You must be logged on to see external links

It doesn't stick to a slope. It's in a container up the slope.

Just like water is at the beach. It's in a concave container and stops at the curved up beach.
Just like other land where water crashes against elevations, like rock faces...etc.

This is what I tried to explain but it was ignored.

 

[DPTT]

You could build a skyscraper using water level.
You can set out a flat land using water level.

Think about buildings on your globe. Skyscrapers.
They would have to be closer at the bottom than the top to any adjacent skyscraper, even as small as it supposedly would be. The fact is you would be building unlevel.

The globe makes absolutely no logical sense...at all.

Ok
I mean in this actual bath, what would you see differently to what you see now?

 

[payne]

lovely stick experiment here

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So this idea that EM waves require a medium, did you come up with this yourself or did you learn that from somewhere?

I'm not going to go into that.
Let's just say that, if you want to figure it all out all you need to do is to go down the simplistic route and see what happens with waves.
A wave is a wave, no matter what.
A wave will absolutely not work with no medium to travel in.
You will never be hit by moving water unless there is a wave that causes the water to travel through wave motion.
You will never feel the effect of a rope holding unless someone throws a wave along that rope.

Then you get down to small levels through atmosphere and thinner atmosphere where waves change but are still effectively the very same set up of motion.

It's all about action and equal and opposite reaction. No energy lost in reaction to energy applied...only dissipated or more focused, depending on pressure, vibration/friction and frequency.

It's also the very reason why space does not exist as we're told.
Why rockets cannot work in extreme low pressure never mind a supposed space vacuum.

And so on.

 

[What A Waster]

You could build a skyscraper using water level.
You can set out a flat land using water level.

Think about buildings on your globe. Skyscrapers.
They would have to be closer at the bottom than the top to any adjacent skyscraper, even as small as it supposedly would be. The fact is you would be building unlevel.

The globe makes absolutely no logical sense...at all.

The way you describe the sky scrapers its like you're thinking on a tiny scale. Like sticking tooth picks in an orange.

All the sky scrapers are gonna be completely plumb in relation to where they are. You won't detect any difference with the eye, especially in a densely built up area such as Manhattan.
Even taking buildings that are hundreds of miles apart the difference from base to base and tip to tip would still be negligible as your only going a few hundred metres high.
It would be noticeable if the sky scrapers were a thousand miles high, much like the same scale as the oranges and toothpicks.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Are you saying if one can't see it using only the naked eye than bets are off? Is sensitive equipment not allowed to take a better measurement?

It's not about making a better measurement.

A simple spirit level will suffice in various experiments to do with water.
Plumb bobs hanging over water from either end of a levelled T piece.
All kinds of simple stuff.

The problem arises when the simple stuff shows Earth not be be a spinning globe.

What tools?

Simple tools. I'm sure you understand. If not then have a think on it and go and do some simple experiments, for you. You don't have to tell anyone on here when it all comes back as proof you're not living on a spinning globe.
Do it for you but obviously still argue and make me out to be a stark raving loony. It's all good.

Ok
I mean in this actual bath, what would you see differently to what you see now?

Nothing, because what you see now is exactly what you'd expect in any container on an Earth that is absolutely not a spinning globe.

 

[DPTT]

It's not about making a better measurement.

A simple spirit level will suffice in various experiments to do with water.
Plumb bobs hanging over water from either end of a levelled T piece.
All kinds of simple stuff.

The problem arises when the simple stuff shows Earth not be be a spinning globe.

Simple tools. I'm sure you understand. If not then have a think on it and go and do some simple experiments, for you. You don't have to tell anyone on here when it all comes back as proof you're not living on a spinning globe.
Do it for you but obviously still argue and make me out to be a stark raving loony. It's all good.

Nothing, because what you see now is exactly what you'd expect in any container on an Earth that is absolutely not a spinning globe.

So what would you expect to see if we were indeed on a spinning globe?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

lovely stick experiment here

You must be logged on to see media items

He gives it away on 1:17 when he mentioned perfectly straight for 140 km.
He then kills it by saying it's very flat at 1:40.

However with the sun being on a dome it's naturally going to angle away from any point to another point.
It proves the Earth is not a sphere.

 

[payne]

He gives it away on 1:17 when he mentioned perfectly straight for 140 km.
He then kills it by saying it's very flat at 1:40.

However with the sun being on a dome it's naturally going to angle away from any point to another point.
It proves the Earth is not a sphere.

So he's a liar?

 

[What A Waster]

quite a nice video here for science people

You must be logged on to see media items

A lot of familiar arguments in this video. Word for word some of them. Right down to the erroneous maths. But obviously our nearest and dearest came up with them himself.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The way you describe the sky scrapers its like you're thinking on a tiny scale. Like sticking tooth picks in an orange.

All the sky scrapers are gonna be completely plumb in relation to where they are. You won't detect any difference with the eye, especially in a densely built up area such as Manhattan.

So therefore they can't then argue for two bridge spans having to cater for Earth curvature.
Massive contradictions, always, no matter what.

Even taking buildings that are hundreds of miles apart the difference from base to base and tip to tip would still be negligible as your only going a few hundred metres high.

Actually if it was a globe Earth there would be a fair discrepancy from bottom to top depending on height.

It would be noticeable if the sky scrapers were a thousand miles high, much like the same scale as the oranges and toothpicks.

If you want to go on the sun and stick mindset for a globe then you also have to use it for your skyscrapers. Same thing.

So what would you expect to see if we were indeed on a spinning globe?

No water in your bath or in the containers that the oceans are in...etc, not to mention everything else falling apart that wasn't buried deep.

Try it all on a football and see what happens.

So he's a liar?

Not at all. He's going along with what any globe believer would do. He thinks the sun is 93 million miles away and comes in as enveloping the entire diameter of his global Earth.
He uses sticks to show curve whilst telling us all it's all flat and straight but believing it has a curve when he sees a slight change in stick shadow.

He won;t give any thought to a reflected sun hitting one point while he bikes 140 km away from it to see it changes angle and so changes height of shadow.
To me it rubber stamps a dome and also Earth not being a spinning globe.
And it makes him mistaken in his belief's...not necessarily a liar, at all.
I don't think you're a liar and you're arguing black and blue.
Nor do I think anyone else is on here when they argue for the globe they believe in.

So try not to use that as if it lends you any credence. It lends you nothing of the sort.

 

[DPTT]

So therefore they can't then argue for two bridge spans having to cater for Earth curvature.
Massive contradictions, always, no matter what.


Actually if it was a globe Earth there would be a fair discrepancy from bottom to top depending on height.



If you want to go on the sun and stick mindset for a globe then you also have to use it for your skyscrapers. Same thing.

No water in your bath or in the containers that the oceans are in...etc, not to mention everything else falling apart that wasn't buried deep.

Try it all on a football and see what happens.

Ok I’ve literally put a drop of water on my mitre delta and it stayed exactly in that place, never moved