Put a flat earthier into space

[DPTT]

If there's proof then offer it but be honest about knowing it is a proof.
Can you offer proof?

That should not need to concern you.
You said you question, so question.

I've never said anything of the sort but if you want to twist it like that then be my guest.

No need, I don't believe you have any mind to do anything.

No need for anything further to be fair. If you can't get this then other stuff won;t appease you and to be quite honest I'm not interested in appeasing you.

If you're interested then put your mind to work and question, like I said. If not then leave it at that.

Is it you?

No so is it you?

 

[DaveH]

I've offered plenty but it's denied as expected, just as you and others offer what you believe is proof when you absolutely do not know for sure.

No you haven't. You admitted that even with your water level experiment you filled a bath said "the world is flat" and walked away.

You have no experiment and no evidence that proves the earth is flat and not spinning.

I'm watching the video. I have a question about the maths.

It was debated in here that 8 inches per mile squared was incorrect.
Here is the same method the chap in the video uses applied to the equator.
We'll round up to 25,000 miles.

First the miles squared.
25,000 x 25,000 = 625,000,000 (625 million)

625 million x 8 (inches per mile) = 5 billion exactly.

5 billion ÷ 12 (inches) = 416,666,666.7 feet

Now there are 5280 feet in a mile so...

416,666,666.7 ÷ 5280 = 78,914 miles.

My question is, using this man's maths, how does the earth curve 78,914 miles when the circumference is 25,000?

Can anybody on here point out if I've made a mistake somewhere?
Why does it have to be squared?

You said no true flat earther would admit to a spinning globe.
The one in the film did. So he's in on the lie

The 8 inch per square mile rule is not a rule, for a start. It is an approximation and is used to calculate the drop over the horizon. It gives a rough figure that gets more and more inaccurate the larger the distance. However you can only ever meaningfully calculate the drop for a quarter of the earth, using the approximation or the accurate formula.

If you picture yourself standing on top of a ball, and you have a target, as soon as that target moves more than a quarter of the way round it is on the underside of the ball or behind you. Ok you can turn around as it comes back, so you are never going to see it.

If you calculate the drop over the horizon of a distance of 24,000 miles, that is actually all the way round and back at your feet.

I graphed them out, ignore the blue line. Red is the real rule, green is the square rule, distances in km, not miles:

You must be logged on to see external links

You can see that because the real rule is essentially a cosine rule, once you travel the circumference of the planet the drop is back to zero. Meanwhile this square rule goes off into infinity.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'm watching the video. I have a question about the maths.

It was debated in here that 8 inches per mile squared was incorrect.
Here is the same method the chap in the video uses applied to the equator.
We'll round up to 25,000 miles.

First the miles squared.
25,000 x 25,000 = 625,000,000 (625 million)

625 million x 8 (inches per mile) = 5 billion exactly.

5 billion ÷ 12 (inches) = 416,666,666.7 feet

Now there are 5280 feet in a mile so...

416,666,666.7 ÷ 5280 = 78,914 miles.

My question is, using this man's maths, how does the earth curve 78,914 miles when the circumference is 25,000?

Can anybody on here point out if I've made a mistake somewhere?
Why does it have to be squared?

You said no true flat earther would admit to a spinning globe.
The one in the film did. So he's in on the lie

Considering we're dealing with a distance of 10's of miles there's no need to go down that route.
1 mile = 8 inches.
2 miles = 2 miles squared, meaning 2x2 = 4x8 inches per mile=32 inches.
3 miles = 3 miles squared, meaning 3x3 = 9x8 inches per mile = 72 inches, or 6 feet.
4 miles = 4 miles squared, meaning 4x4 = 16x8 inches per mile = 128 inches or 10 feet 8 inches drop.

And so on.
Going up in 10's of miles we have....

10 miles = 10 miles squared, meaning 10x10x8 inches per mile = 800 inches or 66.6 feet drop.
20 miles = 20 miles squared, meaning 20x20x8 inches per mile = 3,200 inches or 266.6 feet drop.
30 miles = 30 miles squared, meaning 30x30x8 inches per mile = 7,200 inches or 600 feet drop.
40 miles = 40 miles squared, meaning 40x40x8 inches per mile = 12,800 inches or 1066.6 feet drop.
50 miles = 50 miles squared, meanning 50x50x8 inches per mile = 20,000 inches or 1666.6 feet drop.
100 miles = 100 miles squared, meaning 100x100x8 inches per mile = 80,000 inches or 6666.6 feet drop.

No need to go any farther than that. Use this for reference.

Or don't. It's your choice.

You said no true flat earther would admit to a spinning globe.
The one in the film did. So he's in on the lie

No I didn't.

No so is it you?

What do you think?

No you haven't. You admitted that even with your water level experiment you filled a bath said "the world is flat" and walked away.

No I didn't. You like to stick to that stuff because it suits your attempts at trying ridicule...and failing I might add.

You have no experiment and no evidence that proves the earth is flat and not spinning.

I never said Earth was flat.
As for proof it's not a spinning globe, there's plenty and the main one is water level.

 

[What A Waster]

Considering we're dealing with a distance of 10's of miles there's no need to go down that route.
1 mile = 8 inches.
2 miles = 2 miles squared, meaning 2x2 = 4x8 inches per mile=32 inches.
3 miles = 3 miles squared, meaning 3x3 = 9x8 inches per mile = 72 inches, or 6 feet.
4 miles = 4 miles squared, meaning 4x4 = 16x8 inches per mile = 128 inches or 10 feet 8 inches drop.

And so on.
Going up in 10's of miles we have....

10 miles = 10 miles squared, meaning 10x10x8 inches per mile = 800 inches or 66.6 feet drop.
20 miles = 20 miles squared, meaning 20x20x8 inches per mile = 3,200 inches or 266.6 feet drop.
30 miles = 30 miles squared, meaning 30x30x8 inches per mile = 7,200 inches or 600 feet drop.
40 miles = 40 miles squared, meaning 40x40x8 inches per mile = 12,800 inches or 1066.6 feet drop.
50 miles = 50 miles squared, meanning 50x50x8 inches per mile = 20,000 inches or 1666.6 feet drop.
100 miles = 100 miles squared, meaning 100x100x8 inches per mile = 80,000 inches or 6666.6 feet drop.

No need to go any farther than that. Use this for reference.

Or don't. It's your choice.

No I didn't.

But the rule should work for any distance you want because that's how maths works. If that was correct why for example at distance of 23,000 miles does it have it as a drop of 352,666,666 feet which is 66,792 miles drop. But it would a distance of 23,000 miles would be 2000 miles behind you on a 25,000 mile ball.
Why does it get to 66k?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But the rule should work for any distance you want because that's how maths works. If that was correct why for example at distance of 23,000 miles does it have it as a drop of 352,666,666 feet which is 66,792 miles drop. But it would be 2000 miles behind you on a 25,000 mile ball.

Feel free to go with what you want to. I gave you the basics.

 

[What A Waster]

Feel free to go with what you want to. I gave you the basics.

I'm doing what you asked and questioning things. Doing my own research.
I'm finding trouble making the numbers work. If you're calculating a drop over a distance due to a curve, the biggest amount of drop should be the full circumference. It can't drop any more than that.
So using "the basics", it doesn't seem to work.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'm doing what you asked and questioning things. Doing my own research.

Good, carry on.

I'm finding trouble making the numbers work.

No problem.

If you're calculating a drop over a distance due to a curve, the biggest amount of drop should be the full circumference.

Why would you need your full circumference?
You require one quarter of your globe, nothing more.

It can't drop any more than that.

No need to.

So using "the basics", it doesn't seem to work.

As above.

 

[What A Waster]

No you haven't. You admitted that even with your water level experiment you filled a bath said "the world is flat" and walked away.

You have no experiment and no evidence that proves the earth is flat and not spinning.

The 8 inch per square mile rule is not a rule, for a start. It is an approximation and is used to calculate the drop over the horizon. It gives a rough figure that gets more and more inaccurate the larger the distance. However you can only ever meaningfully calculate the drop for a quarter of the earth, using the approximation or the accurate formula.

If you picture yourself standing on top of a ball, and you have a target, as soon as that target moves more than a quarter of the way round it is on the underside of the ball or behind you. Ok you can turn around as it comes back, so you are never going to see it.

If you calculate the drop over the horizon of a distance of 24,000 miles, that is actually all the way round and back at your feet.

I graphed them out, ignore the blue line. Red is the real rule, green is the square rule, distances in km, not miles:

You must be logged on to see external links

You can see that because the real rule is essentially a cosine rule, once you travel the circumference of the planet the drop is back to zero. Meanwhile this square rule goes off into infinity.

Is it not right though that if you worked it out for 25000 miles the total drop could never be more than that because that's the full circumference?
I am out of my depth when it comes to cosine etc, so I'll defer to your knowledge on this one.

 

[fyl2u]

I'm watching the video. I have a question about the maths.

It was debated in here that 8 inches per mile squared was incorrect.
Here is the same method the chap in the video uses applied to the equator.
We'll round up to 25,000 miles.

First the miles squared.
25,000 x 25,000 = 625,000,000 (625 million)

625 million x 8 (inches per mile) = 5 billion exactly.

5 billion ÷ 12 (inches) = 416,666,666.7 feet

Now there are 5280 feet in a mile so...

416,666,666.7 ÷ 5280 = 78,914 miles.

My question is, using this man's maths, how does the earth curve 78,914 miles when the circumference is 25,000?

Can anybody on here point out if I've made a mistake somewhere?
Why does it have to be squared?

You said no true flat earther would admit to a spinning globe.
The one in the film did. So he's in on the lie

"8 inches per mile squared" describes a parabola, not a circle. It gets used for simplicity because at very short distances the curve of the parabola lines up pretty closely with the curve of the Earth.

The larger the distance, the less accurate it becomes as a means to form an estimate of the curve.

No you haven't. You admitted that even with your water level experiment you filled a bath said "the world is flat" and walked away.

You have no experiment and no evidence that proves the earth is flat and not spinning.

The 8 inch per square mile rule is not a rule, for a start. It is an approximation and is used to calculate the drop over the horizon. It gives a rough figure that gets more and more inaccurate the larger the distance. However you can only ever meaningfully calculate the drop for a quarter of the earth, using the approximation or the accurate formula.

If you picture yourself standing on top of a ball, and you have a target, as soon as that target moves more than a quarter of the way round it is on the underside of the ball or behind you. Ok you can turn around as it comes back, so you are never going to see it.

If you calculate the drop over the horizon of a distance of 24,000 miles, that is actually all the way round and back at your feet.

I graphed them out, ignore the blue line. Red is the real rule, green is the square rule, distances in km, not miles:

You must be logged on to see external links

You can see that because the real rule is essentially a cosine rule, once you travel the circumference of the planet the drop is back to zero. Meanwhile this square rule goes off into infinity.

Ah, I see someone got there first.

 

[DaveH]

Considering we're dealing with a distance of 10's of miles there's no need to go down that route.
1 mile = 8 inches.
2 miles = 2 miles squared, meaning 2x2 = 4x8 inches per mile=32 inches.
3 miles = 3 miles squared, meaning 3x3 = 9x8 inches per mile = 72 inches, or 6 feet.
4 miles = 4 miles squared, meaning 4x4 = 16x8 inches per mile = 128 inches or 10 feet 8 inches drop.

And so on.
Going up in 10's of miles we have....

10 miles = 10 miles squared, meaning 10x10x8 inches per mile = 800 inches or 66.6 feet drop.
20 miles = 20 miles squared, meaning 20x20x8 inches per mile = 3,200 inches or 266.6 feet drop.
30 miles = 30 miles squared, meaning 30x30x8 inches per mile = 7,200 inches or 600 feet drop.
40 miles = 40 miles squared, meaning 40x40x8 inches per mile = 12,800 inches or 1066.6 feet drop.
50 miles = 50 miles squared, meanning 50x50x8 inches per mile = 20,000 inches or 1666.6 feet drop.
100 miles = 100 miles squared, meaning 100x100x8 inches per mile = 80,000 inches or 6666.6 feet drop.

No need to go any farther than that. Use this for reference.

Or don't. It's your choice.

No I didn't.

What do you think?

No I didn't. You like to stick to that stuff because it suits your attempts at trying ridicule...and failing I might add.

I never said Earth was flat.
As for proof it's not a spinning globe, there's plenty and the main one is water level.

Ok, my mistake. Can you explain how your spirit level in a bath experiment proves the earth is flat?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ok, my mistake. Can you explain how your spirit level in a bath experiment proves the earth is flat?

Not to people like yourself I couldn't.

 

[DaveH]

Not to people like yourself I couldn't.

That is because it is a broken experiment and you know it.

You went into detail about this 8 inch per square mile approximation above for different distances, but you never work it out over the length of short spirit level, because deep down you know the amount of curve using this rule is in the realms of microns, which you can not measure with a spirit level and the naked eye.

This is your one proof and it fails.

Therefore you have zero proof that the earth is flat. No evidence what so ever.

 

[fyl2u]

No genuine globe denier would say they think Earth is a spinning globe.

We are now well and truly through the looking glass when you're saying prominent flat earthers are in on the lie.

I've never said anything of the sort but if you want to twist it like that then be my guest.

You said no true flat earther would admit to a spinning globe.
The one in the film did. So he's in on the lie

No I didn't.

More blatant lies from Nils Bore.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That is because it is a broken experiment and you know it.

To you, yes but then again you believe water can be level anf flat on a spinning ball. I wouldn't say that was broken logic, I'd say it was disintergrated.

You went into detail about this 8 inch per square mile approximation above for different distances, but you never work it out over the length of short spirit level, because deep down you know the amount of curve using this rule is in the realms of microns, which you can not measure with a spirit level and the naked eye.

No need to.
Observations kill off the global model, immediately.

This is your one proof and it fails.

Not at all.

Therefore you have zero proof that the earth is flat. No evidence what so ever.

I've never said Earth is flat. Water on the other hand.

 

[What A Waster]

More blatant lies from Nils Bore.

Reject and deny everything

 

[fyl2u]

Reject and deny everything

He even denies he's a flat earther.

He doesn't understand what "flat plane" means. He seems to think that "flat earthers" deny the existence of mountains, hills, valleys and ocean floors.

 

[legend7]

There's plenty testing. The issue is, who is being genuine...who is mistaken and who is passing on misinfo/disinfo?
I can offer you plenty of stuff and you can argue that it's just youtube videos and I'm adhering to what's in them. You'd be correct if I offered you this and the same goes for you doing the very same, or people with your mindset.

So where does that leave us?
It's simple. Do your own experiments. Make your very own observations. Do it without peer pressure and put aside your indoctrinated bias for the time being.

If you feel you don;t need to and your Earth is a spinning globe no matter what, then just go with that and don't argue it with an idiot like myself.
If you feel you can experiment without being biased then do it for you. Nobody has to know what you think if you end up having questions against the globe. You can just keep them to yourself in the knowledge that if you ever did question and mentioned it, you would become a tin foil hat....etc....etc.

Whatever you decide has absolutely no bearing on my stance.

There's plenty of evidence out there that goes against a globe model. You deny it, so that's why I say you're the same as what you're accusing me of being.
Just go with your globe and be done with it. I'm ok with it...I just don't think it's a reality.

In your mind.

So again, you have done MANY experiments including ones that led you to the fact that the centre was made of crystals rather than something else.
What are these experiments, genuinely interested?

 

[DaveH]

To you, yes but then again you believe water can be level anf flat on a spinning ball. I wouldn't say that was broken logic, I'd say it was disintergrated.

No need to.
Observations kill off the global model, immediately.

Not at all.

I've never said Earth is flat. Water on the other hand.

And that sums it up. You say yourself there is no need to do an experiment to see about flat water/not a globe. You dismiss the idea without evidence.

You literally say that you have zero proof the earth is not a globe. You just assume therefore it is.

Sorry, but the world does not bend to your imagination.

 

[nahwee]

Nukey, go and have a lie down lad, you’re making a right arse of yourself this morning.

 

[payne]

Nukey, go and have a lie down lad, you’re making a right arse of yourself this morning.

more like since the advent of youtube and watching all them bullshit videos over the last 15 year