You missed out friction and superfluids
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
you might think that but can you prove it?
No he didn't you are just to blinkered to see them in his post, that's your problem not his
DaveH
Striker
In many ways the basis is sound. If water conforms to the shape of a globe then a straight level over water will show the curve.To be honest I’ve never really understood his bath tub experiment
However the curve over a 1.5m bath was something like 0.000176mm (going from memory when I worked it out before). Clearly that is too small to measure in any sensible way. But if you have a bigger stretch of water it should be observable. Clearly you can't have a spirit level a few mile long, but what if you could shine a perfectly level laser and then record the height the laser dot moves up a boat?
It should achieve exactly the same thing and record the measurable curve of the earth.
But you posted someone doing exactly that earlier today and that is wrong because of reasons he refuses to go into.
His earth is also curved but the curve on his earth is too slight to measure, he has a formula for working out the curve over a bath, but refuses to apply it because he knows the curve over a bath is too slight to measure. Then taking his experiment further is no longer valid because it proves the curve of the earth when it should be flat but his earth is curved.
A tangled mess of contradictions.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Earth not being a spinning globe.
Of course.
Touching the water at each end exactly.
But water supposedly curves in the story books so naturally it offers no proof to those who read that story book.
They're far from flawed. I'd say massively logically sound.
It could still be argued that the T piece bends.
It really does come down to logic.
Is water flat or does it curve when unhindered.
How do you know it doesn't?
What about them?
What was right with it for you to go along with it being correct when you can look at other videos that goes against it. So which one is right?
If your horizon supposedly severely curves over a short distance then skyscraper height would be sinificant in terms of angle away from another over a short distance.
Bridge towers are argues to angle away to suit the supposed Earth curvature.
It's all massively contradictory. For obvious reason.
I'd say facts are. The issue is in getting those facts to be shown to be what's told. And weirdly, we don't.
If you want to argue that then you must be able to show me how you know the facts to be sure on what you're saying. Right?
Last edited:
DaveH
Striker
Why not calculate it? I could help if you like. Give a height for two sky scrapers and a distance apart at the base, and I can show you how to work out the distance at the top, it is fairly simple maths.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
I leave that to others to decide.
My reasoning on Earth not being a globe is more than secure in my mind but I'm just one person.
As for my model, my reasoning is fair for myself. It may be anything but fair for people like yourself and I accept that and would not expect anything else.
As long as you understand I don't pass it off as fact then it doesn't have to be secure, it just has to be a possibility for myself and I certainly believe it to be going down the right road rather than the spinning global detour into fiction.
You don't need a long spirit level. Any spirit level will do.
Even water level tubes.
A level say on a floating flat foundation is all you need.
But, like I said, there's loads of experiments that prove flatness of water and none that prove water curves inside the centre of a container and nor does it conform to the exterior of a ball.
They had to invent a magic force to get people to go against their logical observations.
The power of mass schooling for us all into a belief system of truth's half truth's and utter hogwash.
Not really but if you want a globe you calculated it yourself, so it's there for you to deduce.
It's not about a 2m length. It's about simple level.
If you want to argue distance then a simple theodolite will sort a level out. It certainly wont show any curvature.
I never said anything of the sort.
My land incline was slight, not water level.
Water level simply rises up the incline and against anything sitting within that water on an incline or in the deeper decline.
There is no water curve so I can't tell you anything of the sort.
If you keep looking at it from a moat and mountain top ideal then you'll never understand it.
I always knew you went with a globe. Did you think I thought you believed otherwise?
And yet there's ne reference for the measurement. It seems it's just said to be 3.6 centimetres wider at the top than the bottom over 1410 metres.
19. Bridge towers
When architects design and construction engineers build towers, they make them vertical. By “vertical” we mean straight up and down or, more formally, in line with the direction of gravity. A tall,…www.mezzacotta.net
But this is the point I'm getting at. They say this is the case so if that is the case then skyscrapers would show a clear lean away from each other.
It means they cannot be built plumb. It goes against logic for them to be built plumb and then argued that they're apart at the top than the bottom when centred down the entire structure of the tower.
It's on to say " ohhh it's because they're at the centre of gravity. It doesn't matter. The visual would be there of an out of plumb tower but we never see it, unless people want to argue the leaning tower or pisa.
Last edited:
Well the one you posted (which comes from a conspiracy theorist site denying covid, pushing anti vax) can be explained by refraction as has been explained to you in the past.
What is wrong with the Hawkins video? (Try answering with an answer rather than a question)
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Can you tell me why you don't agree with this one?
@Nukehasslefan
Can you tell me why you don’t agree with this experiment?
To me it looks pretty conclusive and clear on what they have done and the results they obtained
I just have, now what is wrong with the Hawkins video?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
And this is why it will always be argued.
I can promise you one thing. I will never believe a spinning globe again unless someone offers me proof and that cannot be done because it's plain and clear it is not a spinning globe.
I've already been down that schooled run and managed to see it for what it is. Claptrap. IMO.
When someone tells me water stays perfectly well on a convex curve and even show level against understanding it to be flat, then what can I say? I can't make a person believe something different to what they were schooled/peer pressured into unless they decide to actually question it themselves, like I did..
Nothing if you believe it all which you do. I won't argue with you. I've shown you a video which you've thrown out, so keep the Hawkin carry on and go with it.
I'll simply call that video disinfo. Why?
Because water if 100% flat and level, unhindered and you're certainly not lasering over a globe which should be obvious when you understand the argument of 8 inches per mile squared and the argument that towers being wider apart from top to bottom as we're told.
Do you know what this means?
It means that any person standing at one point and shining a laser level from their gravity standpoint, as we're told to the receiver of the laser which would be standing at it's own gravity standpoint as we're told.
This means ...like the bridge scenario, the angle has to be different because each person is angled back even though their levels show differently.
The proof against it is simple.
If the people and lasers are angled like we're told, just like the towers...however small, then it stands to reason that the angle would take the laser way way above the receiver, meaning the laser would have to rise on an incline whilst the receiver is on the decline.
Last edited:
taipeisafc
Striker
Really makes no sense at all
I leave that to others to decide.
My reasoning on Earth not being a globe is more than secure in my mind but I'm just one person.
As for my model, my reasoning is fair for myself. It may be anything but fair for people like yourself and I accept that and would not expect anything else.
As long as you understand I don't pass it off as fact then it doesn't have to be secure, it just has to be a possibility for myself and I certainly believe it to be going down the right road rather than the spinning global detour into fiction.
You don't need a long spirit level. Any spirit level will do.
Even water level tubes.
A level say on a floating flat foundation is all you need.
But, like I said, there's loads of experiments that prove flatness of water and none that prove water curves inside the centre of a container and nor does it conform to the exterior of a ball.
They had to invent a magic force to get people to go against their logical observations.
The power of mass schooling for us all into a belief system of truth's half truth's and utter hogwash.
Not really but if you want a globe you calculated it yourself, so it's there for you to deduce.
It's not about a 2m length. It's about simple level.
If you want to argue distance then a simple theodolite will sort a level out. It certainly wont show any curvature.
I never said anything of the sort.
My land incline was slight, not water level.
Water level simply rises up the incline and against anything sitting within that water on an incline or in the deeper decline.
There is no water curve so I can't tell you anything of the sort.
If you keep looking at it from a moat and mountain top ideal then you'll never understand it.
I always knew you went with a globe. Did you think I thought you believed otherwise?
And yet there's ne reference for the measurement. It seems it's just said to be 3.6 centimetres wider at the top than the bottom over 1410 metres.
But this is the point I'm getting at. They say this is the case so if that is the case then skyscrapers would show a clear lean away from each other.
It means they cannot be built plumb. It goes against logic for them to be built plumb and then argued that they're apart at the top than the bottom when centred down the entire structure of the tower.
It's on to say " ohhh it's because they're at the centre of gravity. It doesn't matter. The visual would be there of an out of plumb tower but we never see it, unless people want to argue the leaning tower or pisa.
So you stopped reading when the author mentioned that he couldnt find any measurements and ignore the rest then. If you can perceive an increase in distance of 40 odd mm over a distance of 1km you would be superhuman.
Last edited:
nahwee
Winger
And I always thought he’d arrived at this value himself!
He’s been schooled!
All his arguments are in this video
DaveH
Striker
So no you will not calculate the curve over a short distance, I assume because you know the curve of water is tiny over 1.5-2 meters.I leave that to others to decide.
My reasoning on Earth not being a globe is more than secure in my mind but I'm just one person.
As for my model, my reasoning is fair for myself. It may be anything but fair for people like yourself and I accept that and would not expect anything else.
As long as you understand I don't pass it off as fact then it doesn't have to be secure, it just has to be a possibility for myself and I certainly believe it to be going down the right road rather than the spinning global detour into fiction.
You don't need a long spirit level. Any spirit level will do.
Even water level tubes.
A level say on a floating flat foundation is all you need.
But, like I said, there's loads of experiments that prove flatness of water and none that prove water curves inside the centre of a container and nor does it conform to the exterior of a ball.
They had to invent a magic force to get people to go against their logical observations.
The power of mass schooling for us all into a belief system of truth's half truth's and utter hogwash.
Not really but if you want a globe you calculated it yourself, so it's there for you to deduce.
It's not about a 2m length. It's about simple level.
If you want to argue distance then a simple theodolite will sort a level out. It certainly wont show any curvature.
I never said anything of the sort.
My land incline was slight, not water level.
Water level simply rises up the incline and against anything sitting within that water on an incline or in the deeper decline.
There is no water curve so I can't tell you anything of the sort.
If you keep looking at it from a moat and mountain top ideal then you'll never understand it.
I always knew you went with a globe. Did you think I thought you believed otherwise?
And yet there's ne reference for the measurement. It seems it's just said to be 3.6 centimetres wider at the top than the bottom over 1410 metres.
But this is the point I'm getting at. They say this is the case so if that is the case then skyscrapers would show a clear lean away from each other.
It means they cannot be built plumb. It goes against logic for them to be built plumb and then argued that they're apart at the top than the bottom when centred down the entire structure of the tower.
It's on to say " ohhh it's because they're at the centre of gravity. It doesn't matter. The visual would be there of an out of plumb tower but we never see it, unless people want to argue the leaning tower or pisa.
No you don’t have any basis for saying EM waves require a medium to travel through and no you will not calculate how much sky scrapers appear to lean apart, against because I assume you know the distance is very very small.
So we are back to the model on your lemon squeezer earth where the land slopes up and water doesn’t, but you can’t explain why the trough is not full or water and the seas run dry the further north you get? Yes indentations will hold water, but the only way to hold water on a slope is to have it stepped. The atlantic ocean is not stepped, so you currently can’t explain that either.
We are back to what I said. Conspiracy theorists pull random ideas out their arse, without any evidence to back it up. They then dismiss the massive amount of evidence against what they just said and claim cover up & conspiracy.
payne
Striker
The way he's going on now it seems that only if one is an expert in a field and can describe a thing from first principles they are allowed to put something forward. Then on the back of that, when someone like yourself describes something in detail he simply attributes that to only parroting what you've heard/been told.
The other alternative seems as though anything can be put forward as long as you just stick 'opinion' on the end. Then one can speculate flying pigs and fine it's just an opinion.
On the back of all this he want's incredible detail (which he won't accept) from everyone else (which they provide) and then after the long paragraph asks for the proof again, He then proceeds to put his ideas across and won't provide any detail just vague statements. Then even more bold he says for his world view he doesn't even need to do proper experiments or provide evidence outside of just trust the human eye for everything.
It all boils down to this imo. He's so paranoid with the belief that everyone is a liar than he can't trust anybody. That's why he dismisses anything from 'the other' and can only accept his world view (which isn't his alone oddly enough).
So he won't accept a global earth argument unless he is provided proof, but goes on to say that there is no proof he will accept.
Incredibly closed minded for a free thinking person who questions everything.
DaveH
Striker
Nice find. I was looking at the 8 inch per square mile this morning, because it does actually work as an approximation, but it gets interesting when you start to graph it out. I'll share that once I have time to finish it off.
Interesting where it comes from. @Nukehasslefan always claims we should do our own research and not just follow what we have been told, while confidently repeating this rule. I have asked a number of times where it came from and how it was derived, because although it works (on earth) it doesn't make much sense. Now we know it literally comes from a flat earth training manual.
Though hands up here, I said the drop was r -r cos (d/r) where that video has r -r cos (d/2r), where r is the radius of the planet and d is the distance on the surface the observer is from the object. I'll check out why, but it looks like I dropped a 2 somewhere. I guess that is what happens when you do your own research, work things out from first principals rather than just being schooled into thinking certain things and regurgitating what you have been told.
Even first principals doesn't count for anything. I put forward that the observed height of Polaris in the sky can only work on a globe. He was with me that we can measure the observed angle to any particular star, he was with me that Polaris is overhead at the north pole and agreed with observations on the amount it 'falls' in relation to the amount traveled due south.
Once I started to demonstrate the maths from first principals about why that works exactly on a globe (while accepting that someone may put another shape forward where it works), he got flustered, denied it all, even going as far as denying that you could measure the angle to a star on which he had previously agreed on. The discussion ended when he kept repeating "that does not prove it is spinning or tilted at an angle of 23.5 degrees". Although I agreed it does not and it was not what I was trying to prove, he stuck with this and refused to engage with the conversation any further.
It is what I have noticed about conspiracy theorists. Push you to the point of literally slapping them in the face with something then they shout random things as deflection or just deny things with no basis.
What you will likely find is this post will be quoted soon with a denial that any of the above ever happened, as if internet history is not a thing that exists.
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Of course if you want to argue a massive globe and a curvature then a small distance would offer a small change. It still offers that small change but offers a larger change over a bigger distance based on a size mentioned, or a radius of the globe mentioned.
You can calculate it based on that. No issue.
What you can't do is marry it up to what you're observing on Earth.
As for EM waves. Think about a wave then try and tell me how a wave can function with no medium.
Just explain it in simple terms if you kn ow.
If you don't then fair enough.
I did explain it.
The issue you lot have is looking at the picture and deciding that the picture shows absolute detail. It doesn't. It does not show raised land from water in the trough. It does not show a gradual gradient to tthe centre because to do that would require a massive map to show it.
If you can't take in what I say then naturally you're going to think water slopes up a mountain. I can't help you on that if this is your mindset.
Indentations are all over Earth from the larger to the smaller that hold oceans, seas and lakes and ponds.
I never said it was stepped. You mentioned stepped, not me.
The very same stuff you're going about without evidence to back you up.
There is no massive amount of evidence against.
