Put a flat earthier into space

[fyl2u]

A reply to my question.

How did we arrive at the criteria which constitutes a metric ton.

I’m repeating myself here. I’d love a straight answer.

I'd love a straight answer to "what experiments have you done that point to there being a carbon arc lamp in the middle of the world, as oppose to say, an electric light or a halogen lamp".

For someone that has done "various experiments" he sure does seem reluctant to share them.

Could it be that he's lying YET AGAIN?

Evidence seems to be pointing towards that conclusion right now.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Layers of atmosphere does gauge up or down.
Try it with liquids of differing densities and see where the densest lie and the less dense lie in the stack.

The densest layers will lie nearest to the source of the gravitational field. We call that 'down'

 

[Kevj]

I don't know,

That is patently obvious. If you did, you’d not question many other things which make up our physical environment.

shall I look it up or can you enlighten me as to what you believe is the case or maybe you find the answer you want?

It is derived from 1 cubic metre of water.
Do you know what that is the equivalent of?

 

[legend7]

Yeah

I'd love a straight answer to "what experiments have you done that point to there being a carbon arc lamp in the middle of the world, as oppose to say, an electric light or a halogen lamp".

For someone that has done "various experiments" he sure does seem reluctant to share them.

Could it be that he's lying YET AGAIN?

Evidence seems to be pointing towards that conclusion right now.

Yeah @Nukehasslefan and your experiments that show why they are crystal form and not some other matter?

 

[BigPete]

I'd love a straight answer to "what experiments have you done that point to there being a carbon arc lamp in the middle of the world, as oppose to say, an electric light or a halogen lamp".

For someone that has done "various experiments" he sure does seem reluctant to share them.

Could it be that he's lying YET AGAIN?

Evidence seems to be pointing towards that conclusion right now.

It's a muse

 

[legend7]

He must be away doing some more experiments.
Can't wait for the results.
I wonder if he would do a video of one.

 

[Dadsarmy73]

@Nukehasslefan Just for your info when you’ve completed your experiments and come to write your report, the correct conventional order of writing a scientific paper is

1. Title
2. Keyword List
3. Abstract
4. Introduction
5. Materials and methods
6. Results
7. Discussion
8. Conclusion
9. References
10. Appendices

Much obliged

 

[legend7]

@Nukehasslefan Just for your info when you’ve completed your experiments and come to write your report, the correct conventional order of writing a scientific paper is

1. Title
2. Keyword List
3. Abstract
4. Introduction
5. Materials and methods
6. Results
7. Discussion
8. Conclusion
9. References
10. Appendices

Much obliged

Great that you've provided structure.
I'm looking forward to tomorrow morning all the more now.
I'll probably not sleep in anticipation of his in depth paper.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If you have a container like, say, a bath that is 1 metre long, and you're testing to find out whether or not there's a curve of 8 inches per MILE SQUARED like everyone else is saying, how accurate would your measuring device have to be to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the 8 inches per mile squared curve does not exist?



With the right equipment you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt which is true: whether it is flat or whether it is curved to the extent someone might expect with an 8 inches per mile squared drop.

I'm quite happy to know it's flat and level. I don't need to further test for curvature of the surface of a large body of water.

The densest layers will lie nearest to the source of the gravitational field. We call that 'down'

The densest layers lie against the ground and not the sky. I call that ground, down and the sky, up.
I call the sea bed, down and the sea surface, up.

You have your gravitational field and I simply don't believe it exists, as I mentioned.

It is derived from 1 cubic metre of water.
Do you know what that is the equivalent of?

1000 litres?

 

[Nobby]

I'm quite happy to know it's flat and level. I don't need to further test for curvature of the surface of a large body of water.

How do you know, without testing it?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How do you know, without testing it?

I've tested it to know what I know.
If you want to argue about super special instruments being needed then you go with that thought.
If you think water can curve around a surface of a ball and appear level then you go with it. It has zero effect on my mindset.

 

[Nobby]

I've tested it to know what I know.
If you want to argue about super special instruments being needed then you go with that thought.
If you think water can curve around a surface of a ball and appear level then you go with it. It has zero effect on my mindset.

You have never explained how you tested it. Isn't it possible your test may have been flawed or had limitations or bias you were unaware of.
Sharing your method and data would allow it to be repeated, critiqued and validated or not.
That is how science works

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You have never explained how you tested it. Isn't it possible your test may have been flawed or had limitations or bias you were unaware of.
Sharing your method and data would allow it to be repeated, critiqued and validated or not.
That is how science works

I don't believe it's flawed and logic tells me it isn't flawed......but....in your mind it obviously is because you believe that water can find its own level on a ball and to be fair I can't understand that now but once upon a time when I believed all the bull sheet about gravity, I actually didn't think to question it the authority on it.

Imagine someone coming up to me and saying " water is level and flat" and I argue and say " what a nut, it's clearly surface curved even if it does look flat and level."

And me thinking that person is bonkers and yet that person not thinking I am because that person is singled out against me being part of a large crowded mass with that belief system installed.

And then I woke up.

It's just the same as someone walking into a crowded church to then stand at the front and say " do you believe what that priest's just said to you about god?"
What do you think the reaction would be?

Exactly.

And just like there are gods, water also supposedly curves around a ball and is fine because godly gravity keeps it on.....apparently.
What is gravity?
Nobody knows but it's apparently there because water supposedly stays on a ball and it's apparently preposterous to think that it could be flat and level and conform to any container it is placed into.

I used to believe in god. Why?
Because I was told to and not to do so would incur the wrath of my parents and elder uncles/aunts....etc. Not to mention schools and what not.

However I have no issue with those who are religious and no issue with those who believe in a spinning globe.

My issue is with the concepts of what was thrown to me and I argue it because of that, not because you or anyone else follows that teaching.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I'm quite happy to know it's flat and level. I don't need to further test for curvature of the surface of a large body of water.

The densest layers lie against the ground and not the sky. I call that ground, down and the sky, up.
I call the sea bed, down and the sea surface, up.

You have your gravitational field and I simply don't believe it exists, as I mentioned.

Gravity is not some religious concept that you can choose to believe or not.
You can muse about the effect or the source or the cause but like it or not, even your own grand theory of everything relies on gravity.
You can repeat all you like about layers of differing densities neatly stacked, one above the other but for that to work you still need something to define up and down.

 

[Nobby]

I don't believe it's flawed and logic tells me it isn't flawed......but....in your mind it obviously is because you believe that water can find its own level on a ball and to be fair I can't understand that now but once upon a time when I believed all the bull sheet about gravity, I actually didn't think to question it the authority on it.

Imagine someone coming up to me and saying " water is level and flat" and I argue and say " what a nut, it's clearly surface curved even if it does look flat and level."

And me thinking that person is bonkers and yet that person not thinking I am because that person is singled out against me being part of a large crowded mass with that belief system installed.

And then I woke up.

It's just the same as someone walking into a crowded church to then stand at the front and say " do you believe what that priest's just said to you about god?"
What do you think the reaction would be?

Exactly.

And just like there are gods, water also supposedly curves around a ball and is fine because godly gravity keeps it on.....apparently.
What is gravity?
Nobody knows but it's apparently there because water supposedly stays on a ball and it's apparently preposterous to think that it could be flat and level and conform to any container it is placed into.

I used to believe in god. Why?
Because I was told to and not to do so would incur the wrath of my parents and elder uncles/aunts....etc. Not to mention schools and what not.

However I have no issue with those who are religious and no issue with those who believe in a spinning globe.

My issue is with the concepts of what was thrown to me and I argue it because of that, not because you or anyone else follows that teaching.

That's a lot of words to say you dont have the confidence in your tests that they will stand up to scrutiny.

You talk about belief and that's fine but it's all you have. You don't have a single piece of evidence you can point to that you or anyone else has that can show the earth is not a globe.

You believe it isn't a globe and that's fine but accept it's a belief system and not science. For it to be science you have to have evidence that can be tested and verified.

You will now go on to ask what evidence there is of a globe. You have been presented with loads but you choose not to accept it, which is fine. But there comes a point where you have to provide your evidence, else you can't move beyond having a belief system, just like the religious types you derided

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Gravity is not some religious concept that you can choose to believe or not.

It may as well be because there's absolutely no physical proof of it.

You can muse about the effect or the source or the cause but like it or not, even your own grand theory of everything relies on gravity.

Nope. Everything relies on a medium. Attached matter. No free space.
Gravity relies on people believing fiction.

You can repeat all you like about layers of differing densities neatly stacked, one above the other but for that to work you still need something to define up and down.

The density/pressure defines up and down.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It may as well be because there's absolutely no physical proof of it.

Nope. Everything relies on a medium. Attached matter. No free space.
Gravity relies on people believing fiction.

The density/pressure defines up and down.

No physical proof of gravity, seriously you need to tell the world about this.
The irony of you saying it relies on people believing in fiction is so massive it almost has gravity of its own.

Pressure, as you have already agreed, works in all directions. It has no concept of up and down, neither does density. You are just making stuff up and believing it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That's a lot of words to say you dont have the confidence in your tests that they will stand up to scrutiny.

I am confident regardless of what you think.

You talk about belief and that's fine but it's all you have.

It's all you have.

You don't have a single piece of evidence you can point to that you or anyone else has that can show the earth is not a globe.

Water level nails it. No need for anything else but there's plenty to argue about it that come down to logic.

You believe it isn't a globe and that's fine but accept it's a belief system and not science.

It's 100% science. Water level has that natural claim.

For it to be science you have to have evidence that can be tested and verified.

Yep, I agree. Water level is the observable, testable and repeatable experiment that nails the reality and deflates the global indoctrination.

You will now go on to ask what evidence there is of a globe.

None.

You have been presented with loads but you choose not to accept it, which is fine.

Circumstantial evidence but no proof's.

But there comes a point where you have to provide your evidence, else you can't move beyond having a belief system, just like the religious types you derided

I only need to offer any person the choice to go and find out for themselves. I am under no illusions about me being anything other than being thought of as an utter tool, nut, mental conspiracy clown...etc....etc.


The only thing that can change that perception of me is for me to pretend I now believe in a globe and go along with the masses. I then miraculously recover from being all the things associated with someone who goes against the grain.
So given that is not and never will happen, (unless someone plugs my head into the national grid and wipes out my brain to render me incapable) it also means that nothing I say or show will be any good to anyone.

What will be good to anyone who cares is to follow instructions and do the tests themselves. I know there's plenty out there that would be interested and would be thinking about what I'm saying...and wondering what's what.

The only issue most will have is, how do they do the tests and offer their take on it against those who are hell bent on attaching mental tags to anyone that goes against the grain?

So.....as you can see.....it's all down to who wants to put their minds to what's said and who quietly goes about it to find the potentials for themselves.
I seriously do not expect anyone to back me up on anything on a forum. I can fend for myself on that matter. It's all about each person in the comfort of their own places to question or not.

No physical proof of gravity, seriously you need to tell the world about this.

I don't need to. If people see it for what's told they can go along with that until they expire. I have no issue with that.

The irony of you saying it relies on people believing in fiction is so massive it almost has gravity of its own.

Aye but I believe 100% it does rely on people believing in fiction but fiction that's sold and told as fact.

Pressure, as you have already agreed, works in all directions. It has no concept of up and down, neither does density. You are just making stuff up and believing it.

Stacked atmosphere starts from the bottom up to the top.
Bottom is down and top is up.
As simple as that.

 

[Drifter]

global

Thank you

 

[fyl2u]

I'm quite happy to know it's flat and level. I don't need to further test for curvature of the surface of a large body of water.

You're happy to be wrong, that's what you're happy being.

If you're not willing to do the experiment with equipment that could tell you the definitive answer, don't pretend there's a scientific basis for your nonsense, don't pretend you've done any "experiments" involving your bath or water containers, and don't keep spouting your "I know it's flat" lie when you absolutely don't KNOW either way whether it is flat or not because you haven't ever tested for the 8 inches per miles squared curvature using equipment capable of measuring such a curve.

Until you do the experiment properly, you're just a liar. An obstinate, arrogant, self-aggrandising, uneducated, mentally-challenged liar.