Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

You are the one who has gone into great details about your bath experiment. I got the impression it was the only one you tried,

And you can carry on with whatever impression suits you.

You can’t prove water is flat can you?

Absolutely...and so can you and everyone else if you choose to do so.
Whether you do or not is of absolutely no concern to me.

 

[fyl2u]

No. You know water is flat and level at the surface and you know it conforms to the container it is within.

No it isn't. It curves at roughly 8 inches per mile squared.

You posted some numbers a few pages back showing what the 8 inches per mile squared curvature should be at different distances, but I noticed that you didn't show any figures for very short distances, like say, 1 metre or the length of a bath.

Using the 8 inches per mile squared rule, what would the expected drop be over 1 metre?

I've taken plenty of time out to understand what they're not on a so called spinning globe.

No, you haven't. You've taken plenty of time out to read flat earth pseudoscience websites and watch youtube videos made by flat earthers.

Aye, maybe not but I don't pass it off as factual like the silly spinning globe is.

True, but there are things you DO pass off is factual that aren't facts at all, like your belief that the earth is not a globe, that settled water is flat rather than curved, that space doesn't exist, that the sun and moon don't exist, that space orbits couldn't work, that rockets couldn't work in space if space did exist...

The list of things you pass off as factual without having any proof whatsoever is pretty long.

In your opinion and fair enough.

In everyone's opinion, because all those thigs are testable and each and every one of them proves you to be wrong.

I may be ignorant of may many things and I can admit that,

Many MANY things.

Try admitting your side as well and you'll maybe gain a better line of questions pertaining to the nonsense you/me/others were indoctrinated with.

There's nobody here claiming to know everything about everything.

One thing we all do understand though, is how to properly conduct an experiment in an UNBIASED manner.

That's where you fail outright. You refuse to do any experiments in a truly unbiased scientific manner.

No pretence on that score.

Yes, there is. You've never done a single experiment in your life in an unbiased scientific manner.

Water level.

Water level is proof that the world is a globe. It curves at 8 inches per mile squared. Provable, testable, repeatable, undeniable except by liars.

Correct, 8 inches is an approximation but plenty enough to get a grasp of what the globe would be offering if it were real, which it is absolutely not.

Absolutely is, and has been proven time after time.

Correct.

Correct.
Global Earth indoctrination is more akin to religion than real science.

That might be true if "global earth indoctrination" were a thing. It isn't, though. We're all conducting unbiased science experiments, the results from which point clearly towards the earth being a globe.

You on the other hand are not. You're clinging to a pseudoscientific "religious" belief that the world isn't a globe and you're refusing to acknowledge anything that points towards you being wrong.

Like it or not, you are the one person here who has been indoctrinated, brainwashed and "schooled", but it is by the flat earth society, a bunch of proven liars and pseudoscientists who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment to prove the earth is not a globe, only for that equipment to indicate they were wrong, and for them to try to cover it up afterwards.

I've done enough to know the reality.

No, you haven't.

The reality is, Earth is absolutely not a spinning globe in a space vacuum speeding around a big central few million mile circumference of a fire.....etc.

Incorrect.

Any device will detect level if it's set up for level.

Any device accurate enough to detect an 8 inches per mile squared drop across the length of the container you're using, anyway.

We all know what level is but many choose to throw that out of the window to accept curvature for no reason other than to follow the story lines and the pictures and films.
I used to do it myself so I know how easy it is to be brainwashed.

WE all know what level really is. You don't. And you refuse to conduct an unbiased experiment to measure the surface of some level water with a measuring device accurate enough to detect whether or not the 8 inches per mile squared is there. Until you do, you're lying about having proven settled water level to be flat.

Already done.

No, you haven't. You've never measured with a device capable of detecting whether or not a drop of 8 inches per mile squared is present.

I've done lots of tests and none show anything like a global spinning Earth.

No, you haven't. You've looked at your bath with the naked eye. That's not a test.

We're all brainwashed.

No, just you.

Not to the scale you want it.

Any scale will do.

We just want you to show how your seas and oceans don't get deeper the further down the curve of your lemon squeezer you go.

A simple cross-sectional sketch should do it. The sort of thing you could knock out in ten seconds.

You seem fixated with a bath. Is this because it's easier to argue numbers with a bath?
8 inches per mile squared applies to your global Earth.
You can play around with as little decimal point as you want to argue, for your globe.... but the reality is right there for anyone wishing to step outside of that indoctrination box we all get placed into, time and time and time again.

You're the one claiming your bath experiment proves that water is flat. We're just showing you why it absolutely doesn't prove that at all.

Using your "8 inches per mile squared" rule, what would the expected drop be over a distance of 1 metre?

Absolutely

No, you haven't.

...and so can you and everyone else if you choose to do so.

We all have. Water level is clearly curved when you test for it in an open-minded unbiased scientific manner.

 

[taipeisafc]

fyl2u said:
No you don't, you 100% BELIEVE the Earth is not a spinning globe.

Correct.

fyl2u said:
There's a big difference between belief and knowledge.

Correct.
Global Earth indoctrination is more akin to religion than real science.

fyl2u said:
Surely if you're so certain that a settled water level in a container is 100% flat, then you'd have no problem using a measuring device capable of detecting a curve of 8 inches per mile squared across the length of your container?

I've done enough to know the reality. The reality is, Earth is absolutely not a spinning globe in a space vacuum speeding around a big central few million mile circumference of a fire.....etc.

You have gone from agreeing that you "believe" the earth is not a spinning globe to stating the "reality is, earth is absolutely not a spinning globe" in less than a dozen lines........

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No it isn't. It curves at roughly 8 inches per mile squared.

You posted some numbers a few pages back showing what the 8 inches per mile squared curvature should be at different distances, but I noticed that you didn't show any figures for very short distances, like say, 1 metre or the length of a bath.

Using the 8 inches per mile squared rule, what would the expected drop be over 1 metre?

It doesn't matter.
What matter is, buildings can be seen from 30/40/50 miles away and they should not be seen if the Earth was a globe.
This is all you need to know.

True, but there are things you DO pass off is factual that aren't facts at all, like your belief that the earth is not a globe

A globe we supposedly walk upon and which is spinning. I stand by that as a fact and offer it as that based on water level alone, which basically leaves the spinning globe story as the book that should be placed back onto the right shelf. The fiction shelf.

, that settled water is flat rather than curved

Everyone knows this but the power of indoctrination and peer pressure can make anyone follow a narrative.

, that space doesn't exist

Not in the way we are told, it doesn't. In my honest opinion.

, that the sun and moon don't exist

They exist as visuals but not as what we're told. In my honest opinion.

, that space orbits couldn't work

They simply can't in the way they tell us.

, that rockets couldn't work in space if space did exist...

They absolutely can not work in the space they tell us.
No matter what the silly stories are, rockets/missiles or any craft requires a medium to operate in. It absolutely requires it to work.
The space rocket is a fiction. IMHO.

The list of things you pass off as factual without having any proof whatsoever is pretty long.

Such as?

In everyone's opinion, because all those thigs are testable and each and every one of them proves you to be wrong. Many MANY things.

None are.

There's nobody here claiming to know everything about everything.

I don't recall saying anyone did.

One thing we all do understand though, is how to properly conduct an experiment in an UNBIASED manner.

Such as?

That's where you fail outright.

In your opinion.

You refuse to do any experiments in a truly unbiased scientific manner.

In your opinion.

You've never done a single experiment in your life in an unbiased scientific manner.

In your opinion.

Water level is proof that the world is a globe.

Just have a look at what you're saying and have a deep think about it. Do it for you, not for me.

It curves at 8 inches per mile squared. Provable, testable, repeatable, undeniable except by liars.

What does?

That might be true if "global earth indoctrination" were a thing. It isn't, though.

It absolutely is.

We're all conducting unbiased science experiments, the results from which point clearly towards the earth being a globe.

Such as.

You on the other hand are not. You're clinging to a pseudoscientific "religious" belief that the world isn't a globe and you're refusing to acknowledge anything that points towards you being wrong.

And you are clinging to a belief your world is a spinning globe based on being schooled from a toddler to present.

Like it or not, you are the one person here who has been indoctrinated, brainwashed and "schooled"

I've definitely been schooled and still am in lots of stuff. To deny that would be me telling lies.

, but it is by the flat earth society,

I don't follow a flat Earth.

a bunch of proven liars and pseudoscientists who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on equipment to prove the earth is not a globe

It's easy for any layperson to prove the Earth is not a globe. It doesn't take 10's of thousands of dollars/pounds. It requires minimal outlay for most things.
The most expensive thing is an evacuation chamber and pump but that's for different experiments as interest.
The simpler one's cost little to nothing to prove.

, only for that equipment to indicate they were wrong, and for them to try to cover it up afterwards.

No instrument has proved a spinning globe.

Any device accurate enough to detect an 8 inches per mile squared drop across the length of the container you're using, anyway.

Your eyes are plenty but a scope will add clarity to it.

WE all know what level really is.

Correct. It means not curved. It means horizontally flat.

And you refuse to conduct an unbiased experiment to measure the surface of some level water with a measuring device accurate enough to detect whether or not the 8 inches per mile squared is there. Until you do, you're lying about having proven settled water level to be flat.

Already done. You've never measured with a device capable of detecting whether or not a drop of 8 inches per mile squared is present.

We just want you to show how your seas and oceans don't get deeper the further down the curve of your lemon squeezer you go.

I explained that but it doesn't seem to be grasped or wanting to be grasped. That's not my issue.

A simple cross-sectional sketch should do it. The sort of thing you could knock out in ten seconds.

To scale would offer nothing. You know this and so do the others.
It's about using your mind to get the gist and if you refuse to do that then it's your issue, not mine.

You're the one claiming your bath experiment proves that water is flat.

That's a simple experiment.

We're just showing you why it absolutely doesn't prove that at all.

But you never can.

Using your "8 inches per mile squared" rule, what would the expected drop be over a distance of 1 metre?

It doesn't matter. What matters is, it shows Earth is not a globe when even news anchors try desperately to argue against what people clearly see of buildings in the skyline over 30/40/50 miles distance.
Go back to the curvature measurements I gave for reference.

I'll help you.
I've made bold and made bigger the pertinent one's.
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.

Water level is clearly curved when you test for it in an open-minded unbiased scientific manner.

unbiased will show water up for what it is. It's surface level when in a container. It is absolutely not curved. Going with curve is called biased which you are trying to argue against.

 

[DaveH]

And you can carry on with whatever impression suits you.

Absolutely...and so can you and everyone else if you choose to do so.
Whether you do or not is of absolutely no concern to me.

How?

You have never provided an experiment that works on the scale of your experiment by the rule you love to parrot.

It doesn't matter.
What matter is, buildings can be seen from 30/40/50 miles away and they should not be seen if the Earth was a globe.
This is all you need to know.

Can they? You once provided a single video where buildings across a lake could be seen by some at the top of a large sand dune (clearly elevation is going to make a difference) only under very certain atmospheric conditions late evening on a warm clear day with the sun at a certain angle. As the temperature drops enough, you get briefly sufficient atmospheric refraction to just see the buildings.

If the earth were a not-globe (flat or this lemon squeezer with a gradual gradient that water....oh fuck knows about that), then the buildings would be visible nearly all the time. When the air is cold and dry you would have the least amount of refraction. Crisp winter mornings or evenings you should be able to see a maximum distance, yet you can't. Why is that?

 

[BigPete]

Do you work @Nukehasslefan as you seem to have a lot of spare time for pointless shite.

 

[vote quimby]

 

[DaveH]

Do you work @Nukehasslefan as you seem to have a lot of spare time for pointless shite.

He is the current Astronomer Royal at Greenwich.

 

[What A Waster]

It doesn't matter.
What matter is, buildings can be seen from 30/40/50 miles away and they should not be seen if the Earth was a globe.
This is all you need to know.

A globe we supposedly walk upon and which is spinning. I stand by that as a fact and offer it as that based on water level alone, which basically leaves the spinning globe story as the book that should be placed back onto the right shelf. The fiction shelf.

Everyone knows this but the power of indoctrination and peer pressure can make anyone follow a narrative.

Not in the way we are told, it doesn't. In my honest opinion.

They exist as visuals but not as what we're told. In my honest opinion.

They simply can't in the way they tell us.


They absolutely can not work in the space they tell us.
No matter what the silly stories are, rockets/missiles or any craft requires a medium to operate in. It absolutely requires it to work.
The space rocket is a fiction. IMHO.

Such as?

None are.

I don't recall saying anyone did.

Such as?

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

Just have a look at what you're saying and have a deep think about it. Do it for you, not for me.

What does?

It absolutely is.

Such as.

And you are clinging to a belief your world is a spinning globe based on being schooled from a toddler to present.

I've definitely been schooled and still am in lots of stuff. To deny that would be me telling lies.

I don't follow a flat Earth.

It's easy for any layperson to prove the Earth is not a globe. It doesn't take 10's of thousands of dollars/pounds. It requires minimal outlay for most things.
The most expensive thing is an evacuation chamber and pump but that's for different experiments as interest.
The simpler one's cost little to nothing to prove.

No instrument has proved a spinning globe.

Your eyes are plenty but a scope will add clarity to it.

Correct. It means not curved. It means horizontally flat.

Already done. You've never measured with a device capable of detecting whether or not a drop of 8 inches per mile squared is present.

I explained that but it doesn't seem to be grasped or wanting to be grasped. That's not my issue.

To scale would offer nothing. You know this and so do the others.
It's about using your mind to get the gist and if you refuse to do that then it's your issue, not mine.

That's a simple experiment.

But you never can.

It doesn't matter. What matters is, it shows Earth is not a globe when even news anchors try desperately to argue against what people clearly see of buildings in the skyline over 30/40/50 miles distance.
Go back to the curvature measurements I gave for reference.

I'll help you.
I've made bold and made bigger the pertinent one's.
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.

unbiased will show water up for what it is. It's surface level when in a container. It is absolutely not curved. Going with curve is called biased which you are trying to argue against.

So we'll go with a 1/10th of a mile. That's 528 feet. Ten Olympic swimming pools.

0.1x0.1x8 = 0.08 inches would be the curve.

How long is your bath? 5 feet?
We'll say 5.28 feet to keep it simple for a moron like me to understand.
0.001x0.001x8 = ??

 

[fyl2u]

It doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. How else would you test for it in an UNBIASED scientific experiment?

I don't follow a flat Earth.

Yes, you do. The seas on your lemon squeezer earth model are flat. The landmasses on your lemon squeezer earth exist on a flat circular plane as opposed to a spherical plane. Your model is a "flat earth" model. You ARE a flat earther.

It's easy for any layperson to prove the Earth is not a globe. It doesn't take 10's of thousands of dollars/pounds. It requires minimal outlay for most things.

Then why haven't they proven it? All your "layperson" experiments that you've shared with us fail at some crucial point.

Your bathwater experiment fails because you don't have the equipment to measure an 8 inches per mile squared drop across the length of the bath.

Your "buildings can be seen" experiment fails because it doesn't take into account the elevation of the observer or the atmospheric conditions at the moment of the experiment.

Your "spirit level on a raft on a lake" experiment fails because the result would be identical regardless of whether your model of the earth were correct or ours was.

Your "laser across a lake" video that you posted had someone in the background clearly shouting "Up! Up!" in the background as they were trying to find the laser beam, clearly fiddling the results to fool the viewer, and was filmed in such a low budget crappy way that we couldn't see what was happening at the laser end of the "experiment" to make sure they weren't moving the laser. In the better video of the same experiment, done by the Stephen Hawking team, the lake was proven to be curved - the further away the boat got from the laser, the higher up the measuring board the beam was hitting.

You haven't shown us a single UNBIASED experiment to back up your anti-globe stance, and you turn your nose up at every piece of evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're wrong.

The tens of thousands of dollars those globe-deniers spent was so that they could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth wasn't a globe. It failed. It showed that the earth IS a globe. They then tried to cover it up. I thought you were big on conspiracy theories. Here's one right here that has been exposed in front of everyone's eyes! The top globe deniers in the world tried to cover up their findings because those findings proved their anti-globe stance to be bollocks! I would have thought a free-thinking conspiracy theorist like yourself would be all over something like this, but oh no, you can't, because to do so would prove you're wrong about everything else! Oh well, let's close our eyes to this conspiracy and pretend it didn't happen because it disproves our narrative! That's what free-thinkers do isn't it?

No instrument has proved a spinning globe.

Wrong.

Your eyes are plenty but a scope will add clarity to it.

Your eyes are plenty? Then how big would the expected drop be for a curve of 8 inches per mile squared over a 1 metre length or the length of your bath?

Once you've worked that out, tell us again that your eyes are capable of detecting that distance.

Already done.

No you haven't. If you have, what did you use to try to detect whether or not a curve was present?

I explained that but it doesn't seem to be grasped or wanting to be grasped. That's not my issue.

You clearly didn't explain it sufficiently, that's why everyone wants to see a cross-sectional sketch to show what you mean. If anything you'd said to describe it made any sense and wasn't contradictory, there'd be no need to request a sketch.

To scale would offer nothing. You know this and so do the others.

It absolutely would. It would show us what shape the ocean floor would be in relation to the surface of the ocean across the whole radius of your model from the central vortex area all the way to the outer rim.

You do understand the concept of a scale drawing, don't you? It's just that some of the things you've said in this thread would indicate that you don't. Like here when you said "To scale would offer nothing" for example.

It's about using your mind to get the gist and if you refuse to do that then it's your issue, not mine.

That's all well and good if it had been described properly, but your description was a jumble of seemingly unrelated words that appeared to contradict itself.

That's a simple experiment.

A simple experiment that requires more equipment than you used to detect whether or not there's a drop of 8 inches per mile squared.

It doesn't matter.

It absolutely does matter, otherwise what are you testing for in your bath experiment? Surely if you were using a bath to test whether or not water has a drop of 8 inches per mile squared, then you must know what a drop of 8 inches per mile squared would actually be for a distance the size of the length of your bath?

What matters is, it shows Earth is not a globe

No it doesn't.

Go back to the curvature measurements I gave for reference.

I'll help you.
I've made bold and made bigger the pertinent one's.
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.

That's great. Now what is the drop for a distance of 1 metre?

unbiased will show water up for what it is. It's surface level when in a container. It is absolutely not curved. Going with curve is called biased which you are trying to argue against.

You're allowed to make this claim once you've worked out what the expected drop would be for the size of container you're using.

Until you do that, you're making a biased unfounded claim with no evidence, no experiment, no results, literally nothing to support your assertion.

 

[taipeisafc]

It doesn't matter.
What matter is, buildings can be seen from 30/40/50 miles away and they should not be seen if the Earth was a globe.
This is all you need to know.

A globe we supposedly walk upon and which is spinning. I stand by that as a fact and offer it as that based on water level alone, which basically leaves the spinning globe story as the book that should be placed back onto the right shelf. The fiction shelf.

Everyone knows this but the power of indoctrination and peer pressure can make anyone follow a narrative.

Not in the way we are told, it doesn't. In my honest opinion.

They exist as visuals but not as what we're told. In my honest opinion.

They simply can't in the way they tell us.


They absolutely can not work in the space they tell us.
No matter what the silly stories are, rockets/missiles or any craft requires a medium to operate in. It absolutely requires it to work.
The space rocket is a fiction. IMHO.

Such as?

None are.

I don't recall saying anyone did.

Such as?

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

Just have a look at what you're saying and have a deep think about it. Do it for you, not for me.

What does?

It absolutely is.

Such as.

And you are clinging to a belief your world is a spinning globe based on being schooled from a toddler to present.

I've definitely been schooled and still am in lots of stuff. To deny that would be me telling lies.

I don't follow a flat Earth.

It's easy for any layperson to prove the Earth is not a globe. It doesn't take 10's of thousands of dollars/pounds. It requires minimal outlay for most things.
The most expensive thing is an evacuation chamber and pump but that's for different experiments as interest.
The simpler one's cost little to nothing to prove.

No instrument has proved a spinning globe.

Your eyes are plenty but a scope will add clarity to it.

Correct. It means not curved. It means horizontally flat.

Already done. You've never measured with a device capable of detecting whether or not a drop of 8 inches per mile squared is present.

I explained that but it doesn't seem to be grasped or wanting to be grasped. That's not my issue.

To scale would offer nothing. You know this and so do the others.
It's about using your mind to get the gist and if you refuse to do that then it's your issue, not mine.

That's a simple experiment.

But you never can.

It doesn't matter. What matters is, it shows Earth is not a globe when even news anchors try desperately to argue against what people clearly see of buildings in the skyline over 30/40/50 miles distance.
Go back to the curvature measurements I gave for reference.

I'll help you.
I've made bold and made bigger the pertinent one's.
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.

unbiased will show water up for what it is. It's surface level when in a container. It is absolutely not curved. Going with curve is called biased which you are trying to argue against.

You might want to check your maths there......

 

[What A Waster]

Can anybody explain why it 2 miles away won't be 16 inches drop instead of 32?
I think this was covered a while back but can't remember it. Why do you have to square it?

@Nukehasslefan can you tell me?

 

[fyl2u]

Can anybody explain why it 2 miles away won't be 16 inches drop instead of 32?
I think this was covered a while back but can't remember it. Why do you have to square it?

@Nukehasslefan can you tell me?

The "8 inches per mile squared" curve is a parabola. It only works as an approximation for fairly short distances.

As for why it won't be 16 inches, imagine it as two separate measurements of 1 mile instead of one measurement of 2 miles. Each of the two 1-mile drops is indeed 8 inches from the horizontal (the "tangent") of the starting point of each separate measurement, but "up" (the "normal") is in a slightly different direction at the start of the first one than the start of the next, meaning that the 8 inch drop on the second measurement is being measured from a tangent that is pointing in a different direction to the first one.

 

[What A Waster]

The "8 inches per mile squared" curve is a parabola. It only works as an approximation for fairly short distances.

As for why it won't be 16 inches, imagine it as two separate measurements of 1 mile instead of one measurement of 2 miles. Each of the two 1-mile drops is indeed 8 inches from the horizontal (the "tangent") of the starting point of each separate measurement, but "up" (the "normal") is in a slightly different direction at the start of the first one than the start of the next, meaning that the 8 inch drop on the second measurement is being measured from a tangent that is pointing in a different direction to the first one.

Got ya. That's sort of what i thought it would be, but at the same time wasn't sure why. Explaining with the tangent makes more sense to me.

 

[legend7]

Not to the scale you want it.

Scale works at any size when it comes to proportions as in this triangle?

You must be logged on to see external links

And this was my cross section based on your info on a base mass following a lemon squeezer world with raised centre and land masses rising through the sea, why don't you just draw over mine to show how yours is slightly different yet keeping the lemon squeezer section as per your map, left is our north pole, right is say Argentina, just for scale I mean.....

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[DaveH]

Got ya. That's sort of what i thought it would be, but at the same time wasn't sure why. Explaining with the tangent makes more sense to me.

This is a parabolic curve (which is generally of the order of y = x squared) and the bottom part of the curve is similar to the curve of a circle:

Logon or register to see this image

That will give it a close approximation to a circle within certain limits.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How?

You have never provided an experiment that works on the scale of your experiment by the rule you love to parrot.

Then accept that and go with it. I have no problem with you believing that.

You once provided a single video where buildings across a lake could be seen by some at the top of a large sand dune (clearly elevation is going to make a difference) only under very certain atmospheric conditions late evening on a warm clear day with the sun at a certain angle.

The shore, not atop a big sand dune.
And why would being atop a sand dune offer any credence to a globe?
Looking level and raising height would offer a much greater fall of your globe, not enhance buildings supposedly on it.
The reason you see better when elevated is because you are looking through less dense atmosphere meaning you see more light reflection from whatever is in that vicinity..

As the temperature drops enough, you get briefly sufficient atmospheric refraction to just see the buildings.

Not a chance on your globe. Not a chance.

If the earth were a not-globe (flat or this lemon squeezer with a gradual gradient that water....oh fuck knows about that), then the buildings would be visible nearly all the time.

Nope. Atmospheric density sees to that...especially on a horizontal observation.

When the air is cold and dry you would have the least amount of refraction. Crisp winter mornings or evenings you should be able to see a maximum distance, yet you can't. Why is that?

Maximum distance to where?
What do you mean by maximum distance?

Do you work @Nukehasslefan as you seem to have a lot of spare time for pointless shite.

Generally I spend most of my time in the basement sat in gravy stained vest and Y fronts.
Occasionally I'll send out for a takeaway and big 3 litre bottles of coke and many kinds of sweets. And not forgetting the extra large tubs of ice cream.
Someone on here told me that.

No offence but I'll have to let you decide whether I work or whatever. Whatever you decide is fine by me.

So we'll go with a 1/10th of a mile. That's 528 feet. Ten Olympic swimming pools.

0.1x0.1x8 = 0.08 inches would be the curve.

How long is your bath? 5 feet?
We'll say 5.28 feet to keep it simple for a moron like me to understand.
0.001x0.001x8 = ??

Nobody's asking you to go with a water level in a bath. Just go larger and go with the 8 inches per mile squared, which brings us back to the Chicago skyline from distance.

It's all there. Look back and also look at my calculations I set out for people to use as reference.

 

[fyl2u]

Just go larger and go with the 8 inches per mile squared, which brings us back to the Chicago skyline from distance.

Have you been to Chicago and done this for yourself, or is this just an argument from authority?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Have you been to Chicago and done this for yourself, or is this just an argument from authority?

It's an argument from authority.

 

[DaveH]

Then accept that and go with it. I have no problem with you believing that.

The shore, not atop a big sand dune.
And why would being atop a sand dune offer any credence to a globe?
Looking level and raising height would offer a much greater fall of your globe, not enhance buildings supposedly on it.
The reason you see better when elevated is because you are looking through less dense atmosphere meaning you see more light reflection from whatever is in that vicinity..

Not a chance on your globe. Not a chance.

Nope. Atmospheric density sees to that...especially on a horizontal observation.

Maximum distance to where?
What do you mean by maximum distance?

Generally I spend most of my time in the basement sat in gravy stained vest and Y fronts.
Occasionally I'll send out for a takeaway and big 3 litre bottles of coke and many kinds of sweets. And not forgetting the extra large tubs of ice cream.
Someone on here told me that.

No offence but I'll have to let you decide whether I work or whatever. Whatever you decide is fine by me.

Nobody's asking you to go with a water level in a bath. Just go larger and go with the 8 inches per mile squared, which brings us back to the Chicago skyline from distance.

It's all there. Look back and also look at my calculations I set out for people to use as reference.

Wow, a whole lot more of stupid. But, you confirm you have no single working experiment to prove the world is not a globe, so we can agree finally that there is zero evidence against the world being a spinning globe. I'm glad we finally agree on that.

The video did see him climb a sand dune to take the photos. Post and watch the video again or perhaps provide evidence where this happens in more than just this one place on earth. If the earth was not a globe, it would happen all over right?

But elevation. Are you really asking that question? Imagine standing on the ground with a small hill in front of you and a mountain behind. Can you see the other side of the hill? No. Now climb the mountain, can you see the other side of the hill now? Yes. Or, stick you eye close to a large ball, how much of it can you see? Now move the ball further away and you see more of it. I'm amazed anyone has even asked. It is basic straight line of sight.

If it was all down to atmospheric density then the view would change so much when the atmospheric density changed due to weather. Like I said on crisp winter days the atmosphere has less moisture and is of lower density. Visibility through it is far better and is one reason why astronomers prefer cold winter nights. If the earth was not a globe, if there were any conditions where you could see further than any other condition, then it would be clear winter days (Also observed in places like Dover where you can just see Calais from the heights of the cliffs and this is clearer on cool winter days). From Roker, you can't see Norway. From the Northumberland coast, places where you can see the top of the Lindisfarne lighthouse but not the bottom, you don't see the bottom appear in clearer less dense conditions. Why is this? Because we live on a globe moron.