Put a flat earthier into space

[What A Waster]

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.

Bridges are horizontal, sky scrapers are vertical. You would still build plumb to the ground so difference in a densely built up area is imperceptible to the naked eye.
A long bridge will account for curve because it's horizontal.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

Came up with what?

 

[What A Waster]

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

What shape was the drop?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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

Then your Earth is the globe you think it is. No further need to argue this point.

 

[What A Waster]

Then your Earth is the globe you think it is. No further need to argue this point.

Finally!

 

[DPTT]

Then your Earth is the globe you think it is. No further need to argue this point.

There you go, as easy as that
Glad you finally agree

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Bridges are horizontal, sky scrapers are vertical.

The supports are vertical and the supports are said to be catering for the curvature and obviously the spans would follow that curve, supposedly.
If this is the case then skyscraper arguments kill it all off.

Massive contradictions.

You would still build plumb to the ground so difference in a densely built up area is imperceptible to the naked eye.

Not to the build, which is what counts.
You build to a plumb and level and that is by eye.

A long bridge will account for curve because it's horizontal.

The towers are vertical.

Finally!

Your Earth is a globe, isn't it?

What shape was the drop?

Not spherical, that's for sure.

 

[What A Waster]

The supports are vertical and the supports are said to be catering for the curvature and obviously the spans would follow that curve, supposedly.
If this is the case then skyscraper arguments kill it all off.

Massive contradictions.


Not to the build, which is what counts.
You build to a plumb and level and that is by eye.


The towers are vertical.

Your Earth is a globe, isn't it?

Not spherical, that's for sure.

How do we build bridges on the lemon squeezer then?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There you go, as easy as that
Glad you finally agree

Of course I agree. Your Earth is a globe. You're arguing it for being a globe like waster is and the rest....right?

How do we build bridges on the lemon squeezer then?

You don't. We don't live on a lemon squeezer.

 

[payne]

Of course I agree. Your Earth is a globe. You're arguing it for being a globe like waster is and the rest....right?

You don't. We don't live on a lemon squeezer.

It can't be both

 

[DPTT]

Of course I agree. Your Earth is a globe. You're arguing it for being a globe like waster is and the rest....right?

You don't. We don't live on a lemon squeezer.

Of course

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

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.

Only if you have no concept of scale.
Bear in mind the Neil degrasse Tyson vid you're so fond of. If these blocks represented 100 storey buildings, then the ISS would be somewhere near the first and second floors on this scale. Tall buildings really do lean away from each other, but are perfectly upright because they are standing on a globe. Even with very tall buildings you would not be able to detect the lean with your naked eye.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It can't be both

Of course it can. You believe it to be a globe so that's your global Earth.
I believe it isn't a spinning globe and is a different set up.

It definitely cannot be both in reality but it can be whatever you believe it to be and are schooled into.

 

[fyl2u]

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.

The point is that your "experiment" to show that water is flat proves nothing, because you're not doing the experiment properly. The slight curve you would see on the water in your bathtub according to the globe model is so tiny that you wouldn't be able to detect it with the human eye or with a spirit level or with a measuring tape.

You've been shown two experiments in the Stephen Hawking video that clearly show definitive proof that a curve can easily be detected on water over longer distances. You've chosen to dismiss them like you do with every other piece of evidence that you're wrong.

Everyone on this thread "sits back and questions", but the rest of us come up with methods of determining whether established facts are true or not. You don't. You just say "bollocks" to anything that proves you wrong regardless of how definitive it is, and you choose not to do any experiments that will give results that truthfully determine which model is correct.

You are not a scientist.

You are a fantasist.

And that's fine. The world needs fantasists. Just don't try to pass off your wacky ideas as the truth, because none of it is. That's not just my opinion, that is reality.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Only if you have no concept of scale.
Bear in mind the Neil degrasse Tyson vid you're so fond of. If these blocks represented 100 storey buildings, then the ISS would be somewhere near the first and second floors on this scale. Tall buildings really do lean away from each other, but are perfectly upright because they are standing on a globe. Even with very tall buildings you would not be able to detect the lean with your naked eye.

Logon or register to see this image

Ok then, no problem but then again you cannot then argue that ships fall over the curve at just a few miles.
You can't have it all ways.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Ok then, no problem but then again you cannot then argue that ships fall over the curve at just a few miles.

Well clearly you can, because you can stand at the beach and watch it happen. You could even take photographs of the effect, and then post them on here.

 

[payne]

Of course it can. You believe it to be a globe so that's your global Earth.
I believe it isn't a spinning globe and is a different set up.

It definitely cannot be both in reality but it can be whatever you believe it to be and are schooled into.

no. It's something. It can't be both simultaneously

 

[ned_werby]

quite a nice video here for science people

You must be logged on to see media items

marvellous.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The point is that your "experiment" to show that water is flat proves nothing, because you're not doing the experiment properly.

That's your mindset and you're welcome to it. It certainly won't change mine.

The slight curve you would see on the water in your bathtub according to the globe model is so tiny that you wouldn't be able to detect it with the human eye or with a spirit level or with a measuring tape.

Of course. It's so convenient and I'm in no way shocked about this. There's an answer for all of the global stuff but I'm just showing the simplicity of why a globe is impossible in basic terms.
Einstein supposedly came up with special relativity to cater for putting the globe correct when it was called out...but...that's going back down another rabbit hole.

You've been shown two experiments in the Stephen Hawking video that clearly show definitive proof that a curve can easily be detected on water over longer distances.

Really?
Does this have any relevance?

You must be logged on to see media items

You've chosen to dismiss them like you do with every other piece of evidence that you're wrong.

Of course, why would I think any differently?

Everyone on this thread "sits back and questions", but the rest of us come up with methods of determining whether established facts are true or not.

Then good on you. I have no issue with any of what you lot think.
Stay firm in your belief's but don't expect me to simply follow unless you provide proof. None of you have done so as much as you try to say you have.
You asked for honesty and I'm giving you my honesty. Give me your honesty.

You don't. You just say "bollocks" to anything that proves you wrong regardless of how definitive it is, and you choose not to do any experiments that will give results that truthfully determine which model is correct.

If I believe it to be baloney I'll say it, no matter who I'm up against.

You are not a scientist.

Then you aren't.

You are a fantasist.

Then you are.

And that's fine.

As it is for you.

The world needs fantasists.

Yep. That includes everyone.

Just don't try to pass off your wacky ideas as the truth

Can I ask you to do the same because I don't pass off my ideas as truth's but you do.

, because none of it is.

You don't know that and as of yet neither do I.

That's not just my opinion, that is reality.

It's your opinion. It's only your opinion in your reality. That's it.

 

[fyl2u]

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.

What exactly is this supposed to prove?

Plumb bombs hang towards the centre of gravity of the planet, so if you just put one at either end of a levelled T-piece then they'll always be the same distance as each other from the water regardless of whether the earth were flat or curved.

It's just another example of your flawed experiments that show absolutely nothing because you're doing it wrong.

Now if you actually had THREE plumb bombs, one at each end and one in the middle, all the same length, and the T-piece were half a mile long, you would easily see that the middle one would be underwater while the outer ones were only just touching the surface, but in a container as small as bathtub the middle one will only be dipping in by such a tiny degree that you are simply not going to be able to detect a difference with the naked eye, EVEN THOUGH the middle one will be dipping in marginally more than the outer ones.

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

Which it doesn't because all your experiments are flawed.