Put a flat earthier into space

[fyl2u]

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?

This is so beautiful that I think I'm going to cry tears of joy.

 

[legend7]

This is so beautiful that I think I'm going to cry tears of joy.

Are they flat tears, globular or cell shaped tears.

Will they fall to the floor via gravity or atmospheric stacking?

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?

We could do a gofundme and try and get one made.
Nukey at one end, the rest of us at the other, laughing, crying, observing.
Oh what a day that would be

 

[Pancho]

Are they flat tears, globular or cell shaped tears.

Will they fall to the floor via gravity or atmospheric stacking?

We could do a gofundme and try and get one made.
Nukey at one end, the rest of us at the other, laughing, crying, observing.
Oh what a day that would be

I can just see the youtube video.

 

[What A Waster]

This is so beautiful that I think I'm going to cry tears of joy.

Really? You can make maths work for anything when you've got it all on a platter. Try using the maths from a non global mindset instead of following the narrative given to you.

 

[Pancho]

Really? You can make maths work for anything when you've got it all on a platter. Try using the maths from a non global mindset instead of following the narrative given to you.

Boo!

 

[fyl2u]

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?

Good luck finding an unhindered body of water that big.

We could do a gofundme and try and get one made.

Don't forget to include the price of a building containing a pool of water big enough. It would have to be indoors in a completely contained environment or the wind ripples would screw up the experiment.

 

[Pancho]

Nukey's long lost Scottish brother surely.

It's uncanny.

You must be logged on to see media items

Good luck finding an unhindered body of water that big.


Don't forget to include the price of a building containing a pool of water big enough. It would have to be indoors in a completely contained environment or the wind ripples would screw up the experiment.

NASA studios?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Given you've developed this idea of what the earth actually is over many years of your own study and research, I am amazed this question comes up to draw out what it might look like and how big it might be and you reply as if you've never previously contemplated it.

Have you not considered this before or have you just never been able to work it out? I assume you have some of your own doodles but don't want to post them on here?

I'm fine with what I have.

Do you understand scale?
If the world is 50000 miles wide then 10000 miles would be a 5th of that distance the distance between your two is pretty much half of the overall dia so appx 25000 miles apart.
My 2 near the centre are 8000 miles apart to scale?
You said that map and our 2d maps ARE representative of where your land masses are?

This will be interesting.....

Your two have been scrubbed.

Wrong map apparently
Am awaiting news on which one to use

Considering the diagram from legend was altered so would the rest of the landmass.

Flat Earth right there. A lie, but truth to a person who accepts it as truth.

Yep, just like a globe. It's all about who accepts what as their truth.
Seeing as I offer only a spinning globe as a lie then the rest of the Earth's shape is to be considered which is what I'm doing.
Nothing is necessarily true in alternates to the global fiction but there is potential in my mind for what I put forward, regardless of what others think.

Don't try being all philosophical now, we all read your posts this last week.

I imagine you have and what you take from them is up to you.

Yes. The Earth is a globe and we know it.

Good, you can stick to that. I have no issue with what you choose, I just don't agree with it.

Even those who only know it because they were told, they know it too.

Of course and they, as you are, are welcome to that.

Aye did he ever explain why we have seasons @Nukehasslefan

Aye, I did.

Been up on one like?

No, have you?

the dome must be thousands of miles or intercontinental ballistic missiles would be able to hit

​

No such thing... imo.

And that is why you love arguing like you do. Finally someone has done your map for you because you could not or would not, and kept asking for other people to provide, and then dismiss it. It is the “do some homework for me” response followed by “nah bollocks”.

Nobody has done any map for me.

Am hoping (not expecting) he provides his map, he did mention it was close to the UN map but

So use that and see where you want to go with it.

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.

I actually explained it. Maybe you missed it.

Here:

Exerz 30CM Educational World Globe XL Swivel Rotating Globe - Diameter 30cm : Amazon.co.uk: Stationery & Office Supplies

Exerz 30CM Educational World Globe XL Swivel Rotating Globe - Diameter 30cm : Amazon.co.uk: Stationery & Office Supplies

www.amazon.co.uk

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?

I rest my case.

 

[Kevj]

I rest my case.

I’m never sure if it is ignorance or arrogance on your behalf. Or both.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I’m never sure if it is ignorance or arrogance on your behalf. Or both.

Whatever you take it as is entirely up to you and is of no issue to me.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I actually explained it. Maybe you missed it.

I asked at least twice, had you answered I would not have missed that.
Show me the actual post or give me a quick repeat explanation of how your projector performs the impossible.

 

[DPTT]

I'm fine with what I have.

Your two have been scrubbed.

Considering the diagram from legend was altered so would the rest of the landmass.

Yep, just like a globe. It's all about who accepts what as their truth.
Seeing as I offer only a spinning globe as a lie then the rest of the Earth's shape is to be considered which is what I'm doing.
Nothing is necessarily true in alternates to the global fiction but there is potential in my mind for what I put forward, regardless of what others think.

I imagine you have and what you take from them is up to you.

Good, you can stick to that. I have no issue with what you choose, I just don't agree with it.

Of course and they, as you are, are welcome to that.


Aye, I did.

No, have you?

No such thing... imo.

Nobody has done any map for me.

So use that and see where you want to go with it.

I actually explained it. Maybe you missed it.

I rest my case.

So is the UN map similar to how you think the landmass on earth is?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Yep, just like a globe. It's all about who accepts what as their truth.

No it isn't. The globe can be proved to be.

Seeing as I offer only a spinning globe as a lie then the rest of the Earth's shape is to be considered which is what I'm doing.

And you've been shown to be wrong so many times it's just comedy now.

Nothing is necessarily true in alternates to the global fiction but there is potential in my mind for what I put forward, regardless of what others think.

And so long as it's just potentials in your mind no-one cares, but once you start making the claim that "Earth is definitely not a globe" then you can expect to be pulled up on it.

 

[DaveH]

I rest my case.

Finally acceptance that every single distance measured on a globe works in line with observed travelling and well measured distances. In terms of distance a globe works.

A week or two ago you agreed the observed angles to polaris work for a globe. So now we have two agreed bits of evidence where the globe model actually works.

On the other side, no working 2d map can be produced where distances work.

I’ve just remembered I said I’d do a simulation of the angle to polaris on an alternate world and didn’t. I’ll try to do that in the next couple of days.

 

[Hend79]

No, have you?

So you believe in something that some other nutcase has told you about then? A little bit hypocritical dont you think?

 

[Pancho]

No it isn't. The globe can be proved to be.

And you've been shown to be wrong so many times it's just comedy now.

And so long as it's just potentials in your mind no-one cares, but once you start making the claim that "Earth is definitely not a globe" then you can expect to be pulled up on it.

He will never come up with a flat earth map that is consistent with observable periods of day/night, moon phases and reconciles the seasons, because it's impossible.

Many flerfers have tried and each and every single offering has been easily debunked.

Nukey knows this, hence his reticence to commit his ramblings to paper.

Apart from the thousands of other inconsistencies, the clear and obvious achilles heel for flerfers is how to conjure up a point source of light/heat (ie our sun) that cannot be seen for 24 hours per day across the whole of the flat plane.

Think spotlight above a darkened table.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I asked at least twice, had you answered I would not have missed that.
Show me the actual post or give me a quick repeat explanation of how your projector performs the impossible.

Look it up.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

He will never come up with a flat earth map that is consistent with observable periods of day/night, moon phases and reconciles the seasons, because it's impossible.

Many flerfers have tried and each and every single offering has been easily debunked.

Nukey knows this, hence his reticence to commit his ramblings to paper.

Apart from the thousands of other inconsistencies, the clear and obvious achilles heel for flerfers is how to conjure up a point source of light/heat (ie our sun) that cannot be seen for 24 hours per day across the whole of the flat plane.

Think spotlight above a darkened table.

The funniest part is that he doesn't realise the impossibility of what he suggests.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So is the UN map similar to how you think the landmass on earth is?

It offers a better idea of it.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Look it up.

Not falling for that old trick feller. You didn't explain it because it's absolutely impossible. Do your own research.