• 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


Nukehasslefan said:
No need to. Just measure the level of the water. That's all that's needed.
Click to expand...
Ok here's DaveH with an explanation how to do it. Don't think you replied to this originally.
DaveH said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
What A Waster said:
Ok here's DaveH with an explanation how to do it. Don't think you replied to this originally.
Click to expand...
Not a hope in hell he will come back with a reasonable response to this.
Just using made up maths to come up with an answer which appeals to authority or some other bollocks like that
 
DPTT said:
Not a hope in hell he will come back with a reasonable response to this.
Just using made up maths to come up with an answer which appeals to authority or some other bollocks like that
Click to expand...
Was a brilliant post..

I'm no good at maths tbh just basics but he drills it down well for the lesser minded :lol:

So if I can get it surely Nukey does. Hence the deflection or just outright ignoring the post.
 
DPTT said:
Not a hope in hell he will come back with a reasonable response to this.
Just using made up maths to come up with an answer which appeals to authority or some other bollocks like that
Click to expand...
It was ignored when it was first posted, ignored when someone reposted it and will likely be ignored again. I was at least expecting "blah, magic maths, global mindset".
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Absolutely.

Not at all.

I'm fairly sure you're more intelligent than that.
Click to expand...
I am intelligent, I just can't work out what you are trying to say. Come on, spit it out. Lets not leave anything to assumption. If I assume the wrong thing and argue against it, then that is a waste of time.

Do you mean level, as in how much liquid is in a vessel or level as in "wow this water surely is mighty flat"?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Nothing wrong with right angles. But I do agree with you about the globe.

Not at all. But you are welcome to think I do and it becomes your truth. As for me, It matters not.

It actually depends on what you have in min d. You see trusting a field is one thing but trusting the entirety of the set up may well be another.

Correct.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Mathematics is fine for the reality they are offered for.

No issues with navigation, just the overall reasoning for how it's achieved in terms of a globe.

I take this to mean flight. I have the same issues with flight as in not beliving it happens over a globe. The rest is acceptable.

Absolutely.
Click to expand...
no. you have new definitions for all of them. you should have new words for your own definitions.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
But you can go and see any of them and argue for that point.
We are not arguing this, so do you have any proof for your spinning globe?

Maybe offer some things and see what transpires.
Click to expand...
I can train to be an astronaut and go into space though like hundreds of other people have. So that point of yours isnt valid.
Nukehasslefan said:
But you can go and see any of them and argue for that point.
We are not arguing this, so do you have any proof for your spinning globe?

Maybe offer some things and see what transpires.
Click to expand...
Oh and I can see space from my garden so...... 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
Why do you use thousands of years of science?
What argument do you gain by using this?
Eratosthenes and so on?
Why the need to use that when today's technology should be able to clearly trump any of that and offer absolute proof...but it never does.
There's a very good reason for that.


No, I don't put any ridiculous conditions on anyone.
You argue your point and shut me down.
Failure to do so but offering words and harking back to ancient history make your argument weak and you know this.

If I was armed with what you and others are armed with I would expect to put this global carry-on to bed but here we are still arguing about it.
The reason for that is simple. Nobody has any proof of a spinning globe but they are armed to the teeth with stories of how it's supposed to work.
It's great for the fiction books and tells and sells a great story but it doesn't tell or sell a factual one unless you can offer something or someone else can because as it stands nothing has been offered as factual.

It may not but it also does not offer you any credibility for arguing for it as we are told, except to argue for a story based on what others offer and what you studied.


And it does not offer anything to p[rove it does exist in how we're told, either.

And it doesn't mean there's proof of realism in any of it.


There's absolutely no flawed experiment. Anyone can do it and it does not require me to argue for it. It comes down to whether a person wants to accept they live upon a spinning ball with oceans just staying put, or actually sitting back on their own and thinking "hmmm, I think we've been sold a massive curve ball"(pun intended).

There's no distraction or diversion. The beauty of all of this is very simple in its setup. Any person who takes the time to set aside the global story can very quickly come to a conclusion, at the very least, that we do not live upon one.

The evidence is there. What you choose to take from it is not my issue.

It isn't verified and correct, at all. You know this.

In your mind, it may easily be disproved. But then again believing in a spinning globe in a space vacuum is obviously going to offer you that train of thought and I accept that.
The difference between me and you is, I don't offer mine as proof. I offer it as a musing because to provide proof I'd literally have to gain access to some of what I put forward, so on that note people should always take it as nothing more than my musing or the musing of a nut job or whatever. It matters not.

However, on the other hand, you offer your globe as factual and you absolutely cannot offer any proof to back that up.

No. I don't ignore anything worthwhile. I just choose to answer some of the many offerings. It's one against the many. Surely you can accept that.

I have observed all kinds of stuff and none of it offers me a global perspective, at all.
But when I was younger and schooled into it, I saw what people told me was happening on a spinning globe and whatnot.
So it's easy to see how many would argue for it and I have absolutely no issue with that.

Still nothing.

Still trying to argue for something thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...
How's the map coming on.....
Nukehasslefan said:
There's a good reason why certain planes will take a curved route over distance. And I don't mean an up-and-over globe. I mean around a circle.
It's known as the jet stream or as I call it, the vortex.
Catch that and your flight would certainly work out cheaper.
Click to expand...
But they do the same route both ways so surely the other way would be twice as slow against the vortex.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
Aye, how convenient, eh?
Click to expand...
If more of the landmass and population of the earth was in the southern hemisphere, would that become the one that exists and there would be no north, and your projector would be in the south pole (which would become the middle of the sombrero)?
 
Pancho said:
Here you go @Nukehasslefan , pick the bones out of this video produced by a very experienced and highly qualified commercial pilot.

Like I said earlier, it's flerfer kryptonite.

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
I can see the problem. He's not using pinpoint scope vision. you utter moron spreading your global gunk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top