I don't have any proof of a flat Earth.
What is a flat Earth to you? Anything that goes against a globe?
A flat Earth to me is any Earth model where it would matter where on the planet you were, the direction "straight down" is always parallel with the "straight down" of every other position on the planet.
I'm just an idiot on a forum chatting. I don't need to prove anyone wrong. Take from me whatever you wish to take, whatever that is, good bad, or ugly.
Aye, in stocks.
I'm absolutely serious about this. If you were correct that the earth isn't a globe and had a single piece of undeniable, repeatable, honest scientific proof to back up your claim, you would be heralded the world over. They'd name streets after you. Maybe even towns!
Very possibly they are all wrong. I believe they are if, in fact, they did what we are told. It depends on the story tellers.
It doesn't depend on the story tellers at all. That's not how peer review works.
Aye, if indeed what is attributed to them was actually from them.
Instead, I'm just an idiot having an opinion on a forum, which is how it should be to be fair.
Of course. I wouldn't expect anything different from global minds. I accept that as part and parcel of questioning and having alternate views.
Nothing to do with "global minds" being unable to question established science, it's to do with with what you can prove and repeat, and what anybody else could also repeat if they did the same experiments the "alternate thinker" proposed to back up their claim.
Aye, it can be difficult for many and it becomes more difficult when real science and real physics are replaced with pseudo explanations passed off as reality.
That's very true. Even now on this very thread there's a grown man claiming that the pseudoscience of flat Earth Youtubers is reality, when it clearly isn't, as capable of independent thought can see.
I have good reason to stick by what I say.
Making some good money from conning the gullible with your books and youtube videos, are you?
Of course, it makes sense. You see it every day with larger dense to less dense particles. You just don't correlate them with an atmosphere so it gets thrown aside or passed off as it not working unless gravity is involved even though there's no need for anything extra.
Atmospheric pressure is a very powerful pressure but it's cast aside as being nothing.
Why?
Because people can wave their arms about and walk and run and jump and whatnot, so it's cast aside as nothing much until people actually pay attention to it when you actually try to create uneven pressure.
The observations of higher pressure lower in the atmosphere only make sense if there's a force pulling the atmosphere in a downward direction.
Without gravity telling which way to go, why would denser air be lower altitude than less dense air? Why would "down" be "down"? Why for example wouldn't you have lower pressure around the edges near the ice wall and in the centre near the projector than you get near the tropical regions, thereby creating a system where if you drop something it falls towards the equator instead of directly downwards towards the floor?
The only way that your atmospheric stacking can work the way you describe it is if there's an additional force at play that forces the atmosphere to stack in a downwards direction.
Not sure what you're getting at with this.
@The Snockerty Friddle said: "You don't have the senses to detect a curve that small."
...and you replied "I think I would if I was spinning."
So I ask again, why would you spinning improve your ability to detect a possible gap that is calculated to supposedly be a tiny fraction of the width of a human hair, between the water surface and the ends of a regular sized spirit level whose middle is
just touching the water surface?
Explain it so I understand it, or is it far too complicated and only those that go to special universities can get it?
We're trying. We've been trying for the past 600 pages.
I've heard one hell of a lot of things from the internet, physically, and through books. You name it and I've taken snippets throughout.
Are you any different?
I think I am, yes, because when I hear something that contradicts what I understand as being the status quo, I try to judge it honestly by seeing if I can spot any flaws in their logic, flaws in their apparatus, flaws in their methodology, and then I look for opposing views to see if other people are contradicting them and I judge the contradictions in the same way, analysing their logic, equipment, process and conclusions.
I'm not seeing this same level of scrutiny from yourself. You seem to just look at what someone's saying, and if it agrees with your preconceptions then you accept it without question, whereas if they disagree with your preconceptions then you disregard it without question.
That's not a very scientific approach.
We're all subject to appeals to authority and we all take something from what we believe is that authority or at least offers potential.
I don't think that's true of real scientific minds. If it was, there'd be no need for peer reviewed science journals; every new discovery would just be announced as "news" without question.
That's life but people seem to get offended when I mention this as if they learned all their stuff themselves.
That's not really what's offending people. What's offending people is that you accuse them of not being able to think for themselves, being incapable of performing experiments themselves, not being truthful about the scientific observations they're making themselves, and being outright wrong about specific fields of study that some of them have worked in for years.
I agree there's no shame and I will happily admit I'm wrong when the opportunity presents itself to me.
You never do, though. You've been shown to be wrong repeatedly throughout the thread and not once have you held up your hands and said "actually guys, sorry, you're right about this, my mistake".
If you had, it would be no problem at all, and you'd actually be respected more for it.
This should apply to others, including yourself.
It absolutely does. It's only about a page ago that I admitted I had made a mistake and corrected myself.
However, if nobody can offer proof that I am wrong, then all they have is speculation based on adherence to something they trust but cannot verify.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're denying all the proofs you've been given and claiming that every single person on the thread is incapable of thinking for themselves or producing something that can be verified, when all through the thread they've been providing these proofs in a verifiable way.
That's what gets people's backs up.
A flat Earth to me is any Earth model where it would matter where on the planet you were, the direction "straight down" is always parallel with the "straight down" of every other position on the planet.
Correction: typo - That should say "where it WOULDN'T matter".
