• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

He dodged explaining how a star and its reflection (reflection and re-reflection) could be seen simultaneously on this dome while the central projector is too far away to be seen.
cos it's git cold that our eyes don't work when crossing the cold/hot horizon line and also, we must consider the demagnification effect over distance that is impacted by major stacking issues at ground level of what we walk/sail upon
This means Attenborough is full of shit.
yeah, he's just a paid actor, or someone who has wasted his life believing and propagating a lie
 

yeah, he's just a paid actor, or someone who has wasted his life believing and propagating a lie
He reckons that Rockhopper penguins live to 10 years in the wild. If you liberate one from the zoo to live at home with you, they only last a couple of weeks.


Probably.
 
He reckons that Rockhopper penguins live to 10 years in the wild. If you liberate one from the zoo to live at home with you, they only last a couple of weeks.


Probably.
He's just one of the many millions employed by the fake industries that keep the lie going.
 
and whatnot
not whatnot, it's what's obvious for anyone who cares to observe using crosshair pinpoint scopes over distance via non movement of head, eyeballs dropping out of head or tilting of the neck. it's all there for anyone to see if they dare to remove the shackles of globe stuff that's put on a plate for the masses.
And obviously nailed on water level in his duck filled bath 👌

Ffs I get it now🤜
water level nails it flat. spirit level, bollock naked in a bath, proper simple experiment that anyone could do for themselves. proper logical reasoning used and no need to test for small distances as eyes with 20/20 vision is good enough to see what's right in front of all of us if we wish to look at the world we walk/sail upon.
 
Last edited:
not whatnot, it's what's obvious for anyone who cares to observe using crosshair pinpoint scopes over distance via non movement of head, eyeballs dropping out of head or tilting of the next. it's all there for anyone to see if they dare to remove the shackles of globe stuff that's put on a plate for the masses.

water level nails it flat. spirit level, bollock naked in a bath, proper simple experiment that anyone could do for themselves. proper logical reasoning used and no need to test for small distances as eyes with 20/20 vision is good enough to see what's right in front of all of us if we which to look at the world we walk/sail upon.
I’ve never actually understood his water level experiment and how it 100% proves the earth is not a globe🤷‍♂️
I feel a bit thick to be fair like 😂
 
I’ve never actually understood his water level experiment and how it 100% proves the earth is not a globe🤷‍♂️
I feel a bit thick to be fair like 😂
it's simple for anyone who cares to actually be serious about simple experiments. anyone can see when looking at the bubble on a level when placed upon a flat surface floating on water that the bubble remains in the centre, thus proving the world is flat. stone dead. or to be more precise, water level nails it, unhindered.

you aren't thick, you just have had things presented to you on a plate and have no need to question them, why would you it's not something you deal with in day to day life, and that's fine. most people go along with set narratives. I used to until I seen santa claus for what he is an invention by air traffic control who does not fly at the speed of light as light has no speed and is instant. he would be able to get to all houses simultaneously if reality so because it takes time on the tracker it is obvious it's made up like the tooth fairty cos i never got a fiver that time i lost a tooth as a kid
 
Last edited:
I’ve never actually understood his water level experiment and how it 100% proves the earth is not a globe🤷‍♂️
I feel a bit thick to be fair like 😂
In some ways the theory is sound, but scale and accuracy screw it up.

A spirit level on water that is perfectly level will essentially sit on the tangent to the curve of the earth. Imagine sticking a 50cm spirit level on a football and balancing it. That is what you get only the earth is much bigger than a football. So if the football curves away then logically the earth will too. Being on water doesn't actually matter at this stage, but it stops the terrain of the earth being a problem.

So how much will the earth curve away by? Lets scale it up and go with a 2 meter long spirit level to ease calculation, that is 0.002km long, but if the middle of it is the point sitting on the earth then you are looking at a drop over half the length so we want to know what the drop is over 0.001km.

The formula for calculating the height of the drop from level is
h = r - r * cos (d / r)
h is the height of the drop, our magic number to observe
r is the radius of the planet (or ball), in this case 6,371km
d is the distance along the ground.

If you try this on a smaller scale with a football it works, but also works on the scale of a planet. That is the beauty of maths, we are just talking about a straight line on a sphere or because the line is a 2d object, we can slice the sphere and go with a circle.

Sticking these figures into the formula gives us a drop in height due to the curve of the earth of
= 6371 - 6371 * cos (0.001 / 6371)
= 0.00000 km
Well clearly that is not right, so lets multiply by 1000 to give the answer in meters. After all, we measured our spirit level in meters so lets see if that gives us a better figure.
= 0.0000000782165 meters
Oh, erm what does that mean? Lets multiply by 1000 again to give millimetres.
= 0.00007821654 mm
A human hair is about 0.06. So here we are trying to fit a 2m builders spirit level (accuracy of about 0.5 degrees) in a bath, trying to measure the curve of the earth and we are looking to see if we can see a drop 1000 times narrower than a human hair. Still not working is it? Lets disregard the surface tension and slight attractive force seen in water, like when you hold your finger just above the surface of the water it will curve up and seem to cling around your finger end. That just makes trying to see anything impossible.

So rather than laugh, lets think again. What is a reasonable distance to be able to detect with the naked eye, assuming we have our spirit level absolutely perfectly level and it is 100% accurate? 4mm should be easy enough to see. That allows us to rephrase the question as:
If we place the centre a spirit level perfectly level on the surface of an absolutely still body of water, then how long would it need to be before we can detect a drop of 4mm?

If we rearrange our equation then we get:
d (distance on ground) = r * acos ( (r-h) / r)
But we need to remember to work in the same units, in this case back to km. Only a nutter would put mm in one part of an equation and km in another. It would be like having miles and inches in the same equation - just plain wrong. So a drop in height of 4mm is 0.004m and 0.000004 km. Sticking these in an equation it gives us a result of 0.22576 km. That looks like a reasonable number, or multiply by 1000 to give us a result in meters, and we get 225.76 meters.

That is a length we can work with. But remember it was the middle of the spirit level that was on the water, so we need to double that figure.

Our experiment means that to calculate a drop of 4mm, enough to be detected by the naked eye, we would need a really accurate spirit level of 451.52 meters long. Rather ironically trying to put that distance into a scale we can visualise, then it is almost exact to the meter the walking distance between the Cooper Rose Wetherspoons at the top of Holmside and the William Jameson Wetherspoons at the bottom.

My local screwfix is sold out of such an instrument.

So before you laugh too much at his experiment, remember that the logic is sound, you just need the scale and accuracy to match something that is measurable and now we know a reasonable length spirit level to start with. Who is up for giving it a go?
 
In some ways the theory is sound, but scale and accuracy screw it up.

A spirit level on water that is perfectly level will essentially sit on the tangent to the curve of the earth. Imagine sticking a 50cm spirit level on a football and balancing it. That is what you get only the earth is much bigger than a football. So if the football curves away then logically the earth will too. Being on water doesn't actually matter at this stage, but it stops the terrain of the earth being a problem.

So how much will the earth curve away by? Lets scale it up and go with a 2 meter long spirit level to ease calculation, that is 0.002km long, but if the middle of it is the point sitting on the earth then you are looking at a drop over half the length so we want to know what the drop is over 0.001km.

The formula for calculating the height of the drop from level is
h = r - r * cos (d / r)
h is the height of the drop, our magic number to observe
r is the radius of the planet (or ball), in this case 6,371km
d is the distance along the ground.

If you try this on a smaller scale with a football it works, but also works on the scale of a planet. That is the beauty of maths, we are just talking about a straight line on a sphere or because the line is a 2d object, we can slice the sphere and go with a circle.

Sticking these figures into the formula gives us a drop in height due to the curve of the earth of
= 6371 - 6371 * cos (0.001 / 6371)
= 0.00000 km
Well clearly that is not right, so lets multiply by 1000 to give the answer in meters. After all, we measured our spirit level in meters so lets see if that gives us a better figure.
= 0.0000000782165 meters
Oh, erm what does that mean? Lets multiply by 1000 again to give millimetres.
= 0.00007821654 mm
A human hair is about 0.06. So here we are trying to fit a 2m builders spirit level (accuracy of about 0.5 degrees) in a bath, trying to measure the curve of the earth and we are looking to see if we can see a drop 1000 times narrower than a human hair. Still not working is it? Lets disregard the surface tension and slight attractive force seen in water, like when you hold your finger just above the surface of the water it will curve up and seem to cling around your finger end. That just makes trying to see anything impossible.

So rather than laugh, lets think again. What is a reasonable distance to be able to detect with the naked eye, assuming we have our spirit level absolutely perfectly level and it is 100% accurate? 4mm should be easy enough to see. That allows us to rephrase the question as:
If we place the centre a spirit level perfectly level on the surface of an absolutely still body of water, then how long would it need to be before we can detect a drop of 4mm?

If we rearrange our equation then we get:
d (distance on ground) = r * acos ( (r-h) / r)
But we need to remember to work in the same units, in this case back to km. Only a nutter would put mm in one part of an equation and km in another. It would be like having miles and inches in the same equation - just plain wrong. So a drop in height of 4mm is 0.004m and 0.000004 km. Sticking these in an equation it gives us a result of 0.22576 km. That looks like a reasonable number, or multiply by 1000 to give us a result in meters, and we get 225.76 meters.

That is a length we can work with. But remember it was the middle of the spirit level that was on the water, so we need to double that figure.

Our experiment means that to calculate a drop of 4mm, enough to be detected by the naked eye, we would need a really accurate spirit level of 451.52 meters long. Rather ironically trying to put that distance into a scale we can visualise, then it is almost exact to the meter the walking distance between the Cooper Rose Wetherspoons at the top of Holmside and the William Jameson Wetherspoons at the bottom.

My local screwfix is sold out of such an instrument.

So before you laugh too much at his experiment, remember that the logic is sound, you just need the scale and accuracy to match something that is measurable and now we know a reasonable length spirit level to start with. Who is up for giving it a go?
f***ing brilliant.

Marginally unhinged, but none the worse for that.
 
In some ways the theory is sound, but scale and accuracy screw it up.

A spirit level on water that is perfectly level will essentially sit on the tangent to the curve of the earth. Imagine sticking a 50cm spirit level on a football and balancing it. That is what you get only the earth is much bigger than a football. So if the football curves away then logically the earth will too. Being on water doesn't actually matter at this stage, but it stops the terrain of the earth being a problem.

So how much will the earth curve away by? Lets scale it up and go with a 2 meter long spirit level to ease calculation, that is 0.002km long, but if the middle of it is the point sitting on the earth then you are looking at a drop over half the length so we want to know what the drop is over 0.001km.

The formula for calculating the height of the drop from level is
h = r - r * cos (d / r)
h is the height of the drop, our magic number to observe
r is the radius of the planet (or ball), in this case 6,371km
d is the distance along the ground.

If you try this on a smaller scale with a football it works, but also works on the scale of a planet. That is the beauty of maths, we are just talking about a straight line on a sphere or because the line is a 2d object, we can slice the sphere and go with a circle.

Sticking these figures into the formula gives us a drop in height due to the curve of the earth of
= 6371 - 6371 * cos (0.001 / 6371)
= 0.00000 km
Well clearly that is not right, so lets multiply by 1000 to give the answer in meters. After all, we measured our spirit level in meters so lets see if that gives us a better figure.
= 0.0000000782165 meters
Oh, erm what does that mean? Lets multiply by 1000 again to give millimetres.
= 0.00007821654 mm
A human hair is about 0.06. So here we are trying to fit a 2m builders spirit level (accuracy of about 0.5 degrees) in a bath, trying to measure the curve of the earth and we are looking to see if we can see a drop 1000 times narrower than a human hair. Still not working is it? Lets disregard the surface tension and slight attractive force seen in water, like when you hold your finger just above the surface of the water it will curve up and seem to cling around your finger end. That just makes trying to see anything impossible.

So rather than laugh, lets think again. What is a reasonable distance to be able to detect with the naked eye, assuming we have our spirit level absolutely perfectly level and it is 100% accurate? 4mm should be easy enough to see. That allows us to rephrase the question as:
If we place the centre a spirit level perfectly level on the surface of an absolutely still body of water, then how long would it need to be before we can detect a drop of 4mm?

If we rearrange our equation then we get:
d (distance on ground) = r * acos ( (r-h) / r)
But we need to remember to work in the same units, in this case back to km. Only a nutter would put mm in one part of an equation and km in another. It would be like having miles and inches in the same equation - just plain wrong. So a drop in height of 4mm is 0.004m and 0.000004 km. Sticking these in an equation it gives us a result of 0.22576 km. That looks like a reasonable number, or multiply by 1000 to give us a result in meters, and we get 225.76 meters.

That is a length we can work with. But remember it was the middle of the spirit level that was on the water, so we need to double that figure.

Our experiment means that to calculate a drop of 4mm, enough to be detected by the naked eye, we would need a really accurate spirit level of 451.52 meters long. Rather ironically trying to put that distance into a scale we can visualise, then it is almost exact to the meter the walking distance between the Cooper Rose Wetherspoons at the top of Holmside and the William Jameson Wetherspoons at the bottom.

My local screwfix is sold out of such an instrument.

So before you laugh too much at his experiment, remember that the logic is sound, you just need the scale and accuracy to match something that is measurable and now we know a reasonable length spirit level to start with. Who is up for giving it a go?
water level nails it, no need to calculate you utter moron. use your eyes and simple experiments for gods sake
 
Last edited:
In some ways the theory is sound, but scale and accuracy screw it up.

A spirit level on water that is perfectly level will essentially sit on the tangent to the curve of the earth. Imagine sticking a 50cm spirit level on a football and balancing it. That is what you get only the earth is much bigger than a football. So if the football curves away then logically the earth will too. Being on water doesn't actually matter at this stage, but it stops the terrain of the earth being a problem.

So how much will the earth curve away by? Lets scale it up and go with a 2 meter long spirit level to ease calculation, that is 0.002km long, but if the middle of it is the point sitting on the earth then you are looking at a drop over half the length so we want to know what the drop is over 0.001km.

The formula for calculating the height of the drop from level is
h = r - r * cos (d / r)
h is the height of the drop, our magic number to observe
r is the radius of the planet (or ball), in this case 6,371km
d is the distance along the ground.

If you try this on a smaller scale with a football it works, but also works on the scale of a planet. That is the beauty of maths, we are just talking about a straight line on a sphere or because the line is a 2d object, we can slice the sphere and go with a circle.

Sticking these figures into the formula gives us a drop in height due to the curve of the earth of
= 6371 - 6371 * cos (0.001 / 6371)
= 0.00000 km
Well clearly that is not right, so lets multiply by 1000 to give the answer in meters. After all, we measured our spirit level in meters so lets see if that gives us a better figure.
= 0.0000000782165 meters
Oh, erm what does that mean? Lets multiply by 1000 again to give millimetres.
= 0.00007821654 mm
A human hair is about 0.06. So here we are trying to fit a 2m builders spirit level (accuracy of about 0.5 degrees) in a bath, trying to measure the curve of the earth and we are looking to see if we can see a drop 1000 times narrower than a human hair. Still not working is it? Lets disregard the surface tension and slight attractive force seen in water, like when you hold your finger just above the surface of the water it will curve up and seem to cling around your finger end. That just makes trying to see anything impossible.

So rather than laugh, lets think again. What is a reasonable distance to be able to detect with the naked eye, assuming we have our spirit level absolutely perfectly level and it is 100% accurate? 4mm should be easy enough to see. That allows us to rephrase the question as:
If we place the centre a spirit level perfectly level on the surface of an absolutely still body of water, then how long would it need to be before we can detect a drop of 4mm?

If we rearrange our equation then we get:
d (distance on ground) = r * acos ( (r-h) / r)
But we need to remember to work in the same units, in this case back to km. Only a nutter would put mm in one part of an equation and km in another. It would be like having miles and inches in the same equation - just plain wrong. So a drop in height of 4mm is 0.004m and 0.000004 km. Sticking these in an equation it gives us a result of 0.22576 km. That looks like a reasonable number, or multiply by 1000 to give us a result in meters, and we get 225.76 meters.

That is a length we can work with. But remember it was the middle of the spirit level that was on the water, so we need to double that figure.

Our experiment means that to calculate a drop of 4mm, enough to be detected by the naked eye, we would need a really accurate spirit level of 451.52 meters long. Rather ironically trying to put that distance into a scale we can visualise, then it is almost exact to the meter the walking distance between the Cooper Rose Wetherspoons at the top of Holmside and the William Jameson Wetherspoons at the bottom.

My local screwfix is sold out of such an instrument.

So before you laugh too much at his experiment, remember that the logic is sound, you just need the scale and accuracy to match something that is measurable and now we know a reasonable length spirit level to start with. Who is up for giving it a go?

I've got a 452 metre long bath, just need the spirit level now.
 
Unless you can show me a globe where they match up to actual reality.
Here:

They sell them and similar nearly everywhere. If it doesn't have a scale marked, put a bit of string between the poles, take the reported circumference of the earth and half it. Measure the string and you have your scale. Then pick a reported distances between two cities. Me and a couple of others have used Rio and Sydney as an example. Put the string between those two cities, measure it, work out the distance against the scale you calculated and see how that ties in with the reported distance. You will find it is almost exact, allowing for the degree of error you are going to get holding string between your fingernails.

Can you tell me a single distance that doesn't work on a globe like this? Name your landmasses or cities. Better still, buy one and with a few photos, show us how you think this fails.

It doesn't.

Now compare this to the fact that you said you could not make a working map.

One works, one doesn't. Which is more likely to reflect reality?
 
Here:

They sell them and similar nearly everywhere. If it doesn't have a scale marked, put a bit of string between the poles, take the reported circumference of the earth and half it. Measure the string and you have your scale. Then pick a reported distances between two cities. Me and a couple of others have used Rio and Sydney as an example. Put the string between those two cities, measure it, work out the distance against the scale you calculated and see how that ties in with the reported distance. You will find it is almost exact, allowing for the degree of error you are going to get holding string between your fingernails.

Can you tell me a single distance that doesn't work on a globe like this? Name your landmasses or cities. Better still, buy one and with a few photos, show us how you think this fails.

It doesn't.

Now compare this to the fact that you said you could not make a working map.

One works, one doesn't. Which is more likely to reflect reality?
Does it come with built in wobble? I need to know that it will wobble if I carry it around in circles.
 
In some ways the theory is sound, but scale and accuracy screw it up.

A spirit level on water that is perfectly level will essentially sit on the tangent to the curve of the earth. Imagine sticking a 50cm spirit level on a football and balancing it. That is what you get only the earth is much bigger than a football. So if the football curves away then logically the earth will too. Being on water doesn't actually matter at this stage, but it stops the terrain of the earth being a problem.

So how much will the earth curve away by? Lets scale it up and go with a 2 meter long spirit level to ease calculation, that is 0.002km long, but if the middle of it is the point sitting on the earth then you are looking at a drop over half the length so we want to know what the drop is over 0.001km.

The formula for calculating the height of the drop from level is
h = r - r * cos (d / r)
h is the height of the drop, our magic number to observe
r is the radius of the planet (or ball), in this case 6,371km
d is the distance along the ground.

If you try this on a smaller scale with a football it works, but also works on the scale of a planet. That is the beauty of maths, we are just talking about a straight line on a sphere or because the line is a 2d object, we can slice the sphere and go with a circle.

Sticking these figures into the formula gives us a drop in height due to the curve of the earth of
= 6371 - 6371 * cos (0.001 / 6371)
= 0.00000 km
Well clearly that is not right, so lets multiply by 1000 to give the answer in meters. After all, we measured our spirit level in meters so lets see if that gives us a better figure.
= 0.0000000782165 meters
Oh, erm what does that mean? Lets multiply by 1000 again to give millimetres.
= 0.00007821654 mm
A human hair is about 0.06. So here we are trying to fit a 2m builders spirit level (accuracy of about 0.5 degrees) in a bath, trying to measure the curve of the earth and we are looking to see if we can see a drop 1000 times narrower than a human hair. Still not working is it? Lets disregard the surface tension and slight attractive force seen in water, like when you hold your finger just above the surface of the water it will curve up and seem to cling around your finger end. That just makes trying to see anything impossible.

So rather than laugh, lets think again. What is a reasonable distance to be able to detect with the naked eye, assuming we have our spirit level absolutely perfectly level and it is 100% accurate? 4mm should be easy enough to see. That allows us to rephrase the question as:
If we place the centre a spirit level perfectly level on the surface of an absolutely still body of water, then how long would it need to be before we can detect a drop of 4mm?

If we rearrange our equation then we get:
d (distance on ground) = r * acos ( (r-h) / r)
But we need to remember to work in the same units, in this case back to km. Only a nutter would put mm in one part of an equation and km in another. It would be like having miles and inches in the same equation - just plain wrong. So a drop in height of 4mm is 0.004m and 0.000004 km. Sticking these in an equation it gives us a result of 0.22576 km. That looks like a reasonable number, or multiply by 1000 to give us a result in meters, and we get 225.76 meters.

That is a length we can work with. But remember it was the middle of the spirit level that was on the water, so we need to double that figure.

Our experiment means that to calculate a drop of 4mm, enough to be detected by the naked eye, we would need a really accurate spirit level of 451.52 meters long. Rather ironically trying to put that distance into a scale we can visualise, then it is almost exact to the meter the walking distance between the Cooper Rose Wetherspoons at the top of Holmside and the William Jameson Wetherspoons at the bottom.

My local screwfix is sold out of such an instrument.

So before you laugh too much at his experiment, remember that the logic is sound, you just need the scale and accuracy to match something that is measurable and now we know a reasonable length spirit level to start with. Who is up for giving it a go?
Got you covered:


😉
 
Here:

They sell them and similar nearly everywhere. If it doesn't have a scale marked, put a bit of string between the poles, take the reported circumference of the earth and half it. Measure the string and you have your scale. Then pick a reported distances between two cities. Me and a couple of others have used Rio and Sydney as an example. Put the string between those two cities, measure it, work out the distance against the scale you calculated and see how that ties in with the reported distance. You will find it is almost exact, allowing for the degree of error you are going to get holding string between your fingernails.

Can you tell me a single distance that doesn't work on a globe like this? Name your landmasses or cities. Better still, buy one and with a few photos, show us how you think this fails.

It doesn't.

Now compare this to the fact that you said you could not make a working map.

One works, one doesn't. Which is more likely to reflect reality?
you're so indoctrinated to realise you're a moron
 
Here:

They sell them and similar nearly everywhere. If it doesn't have a scale marked, put a bit of string between the poles, take the reported circumference of the earth and half it. Measure the string and you have your scale. Then pick a reported distances between two cities. Me and a couple of others have used Rio and Sydney as an example. Put the string between those two cities, measure it, work out the distance against the scale you calculated and see how that ties in with the reported distance. You will find it is almost exact, allowing for the degree of error you are going to get holding string between your fingernails.

Can you tell me a single distance that doesn't work on a globe like this? Name your landmasses or cities. Better still, buy one and with a few photos, show us how you think this fails.

It doesn't.

Now compare this to the fact that you said you could not make a working map.

One works, one doesn't. Which is more likely to reflect reality?
All well and good, but explain the four corners of the globe.
 
Where do the fuckin penguins live?
We all live south.
There is no North really
Or East
Or West
Peach springer spaniel velocity overcomes imaginary distance trampoline cardboard.

This is something similar to what I expect to wake up to tomorrow from him.
No explanation of distance on my scaled drawing, no explanations of anyone else's valid questions, no explanation of seasons, no explanation of what ISS is or why nobody has flew "a few miles" to prove its not actually ISS

Just random words.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top