Put a flat earthier into space

[Nobby]

I live in Washington my mam lives in bedlington so called north of here.
If the world was a globe I would be going uphill to her house, but it isn't it's up and down but mainly flat*. The earth isn't a globe, there I've proved it
* I know this cos I ride my bike and know when I am going up and down by the changes in atmospheric density. It's hard to peddle against the increased density

I live in Washington my mam lives in bedlington so called north of here.
If the world was a globe I would be going downhill to her house, but it isn't it's up and down but mainly flat*. The earth isn't a globe, there I've proved it
* I know this cos I ride my bike and know when I am going up and down by the changes in atmospheric density. It's hard to peddle against the increased density

 

[ned_werby]

The curve on the earth is minor. I think that is the bit you completely fail to understand. Yes it is 360 degrees all the way round, but the earth is really big which makes any circular drop very small.

Above you said the drop on the earth for 50 miles was 1666 feet. I think I should draw attention to this because you actually got something right. 136 pages and here is one thing, using maths that you previously described as a magical mystery, you have something correct. I think we should all celebrate this fact, it is a sign you are slowly getting there. But moving on....

Circular drop can be calculated by the formula drop = r - r cos (d/r) where d is the distance on the surface and r is the radius of the circle/sphere (any cross section of a sphere is a circle)

The earth is 6,371km and a bath is about 1.5m long. Converting to the same unit 0.0015km. My calculator can't actually do that whole calculation as the screen is not big enough! 0.0015 / 6371 gives 0.000000253. The cosine of that is 0.9999999999999724 or pretty close to 1. To work out the drop in km we have to convert to scientific notation because it is so small. 1.7644197214394808e-10km. But we know there are 1000 meters in a kilometer and 1000 mm in a meter, so we can convert that to mm by multiplying it by 1000x1000 or 1,000,000. That gives the above number as a drop of 0.000176mm or in more human words just over a thousandth of a millimeter - using the same maths as you used above. That is the rate of the curve of the earth over the length of a bath. I think all would agree that is minor and you would need some pretty accurate equipment to measure such a drop. It could be argued it is not possible when it is well known that water in a container has a slight curve at the very edges up to a couple of millimeters.

I'd be interested to know roughly how much your fantasy earth curves over the length of a bath* more or less than the above tiny fraction of a millimeter, and does it really make a difference?

This is what I mean about a confusued web of contradictions. The earth can not be curved because of a bath. But it can work on my world which is also curved because my curve is very small. Using maths that I will happily use to prove/disprove one thing, I can show the reality of a globe earth is also really small, unmeasurable, but hey, I'll not hold that back as the major theme for my anti-globe narrative over 136 pages. Since you started arguing for a non-flat earth, the majority of your own arguments against a globe work against you. You can not use the same maths to prove one thing then argue it is bollocks for another, on the same page.



* Length of a bath is not usually considered a scientific measurement of length, but will do in this context.

@Nukehasslefan completely blarn out of his (not quite flat) water

 

[Nukehasslefan]

where do they go oh wise one?

Into the drink, grasshopper.

Where do they go?

Into the sea most likely, or disintegrate, depending on what's being made and sent ballistic for a short period of time. Missile or effigy. Hmmmm.

8 inches per mile squared is wrong, but interestingly when you look at it, it is a reasonable rule of thumb for less than 100 miles, on a planet of the size of earth.

Mixing feet, inches and miles does muddy the water a bit, because imperial just gets odd and frustrating, but when you compare the rule I put forward (and someone agreed with above) over relative short distances they are actually pretty close. However the further and further distance, the more inaccurate it becomes:

Distance in miles	Distance in km	Drop in feet by sq rule (feet)	meters	Drop by reality (KM)	in feet	Difference
35	56.3	816.7	248.92	0.24900	816.91	-0.2
36	57.9	864.0	263.3	0.26343	864.26	-0.3
37	59.5	912.7	278.2	0.27826	912.94	-0.3
38	61.2	962.7	293.4	0.29351	962.96	-0.3
39	62.8	1014.0	309.1	0.30916	1014.31	-0.3
40	64.4	1066.7	325.1	0.32522	1066.99	-0.3
41	66.0	1120.7	341.6	0.34168	1121.00	-0.3
42	67.6	1176.0	358.4	0.35855	1176.35	-0.4
43	69.2	1232.7	375.7	0.37583	1233.04	-0.4
44	70.8	1290.7	393.4	0.39351	1291.05	-0.4
45	72.4	1350.0	411.5	0.41160	1350.40	-0.4
46	74.0	1410.7	430.0	0.43010	1411.09	-0.4
47	75.6	1472.7	448.9	0.44900	1473.10	-0.4
48	77.2	1536.0	468.2	0.46831	1536.46	-0.5
49	78.9	1600.7	487.9	0.48803	1601.14	-0.5
50	80.5	1666.7	508.0	0.50815	1667.16	-0.5
51	82.1	1734.0	528.5	0.52868	1734.51	-0.5
52	83.7	1802.7	549.5	0.54961	1803.20	-0.5
53	85.3	1872.7	570.8	0.57096	1873.22	-0.6
54	86.9	1944.0	592.5	0.59271	1944.57	-0.6
55	88.5	2016.7	614.7	0.61486	2017.26	-0.6
56	90.1	2090.7	637.2	0.63742	2091.28	-0.6
57	91.7	2166.0	660.2	0.66039	2166.63	-0.6
58	93.3	2242.7	683.6	0.68376	2243.32	-0.7
59	95.0	2320.7	707.3	0.70754	2321.34	-0.7
60	96.6	2400.0	731.5	0.73173	2400.70	-0.7
61	98.2	2480.7	756.1	0.75633	2481.38	-0.7
62	99.8	2562.7	781.1	0.78133	2563.41	-0.7
63	101.4	2646.0	806.5	0.80673	2646.76	-0.8
64	103.0	2730.7	832.3	0.83255	2731.45	-0.8
65	104.6	2816.7	858.5	0.85877	2817.47	-0.8
66	106.2	2904.0	885.1	0.88539	2904.83	-0.8
67	107.8	2992.7	912.2	0.91243	2993.52	-0.9
68	109.4	3082.7	939.6	0.93986	3083.54	-0.9
69	111.0	3174.0	967.4	0.96771	3174.90	-0.9
70	112.7	3266.7	995.7	0.99596	3267.59	-0.9
71	114.3	3360.7	1024.3	1.02462	3361.62	-0.9

You can see from the table above that over 50 miles it is pretty close, I ended my table on 71 miles and you can see that your approximation gets further and further away.

Now, my rule came about from me sitting with pencil and paper along with basic rules of trigonometry and working it out from first principals. As a result I can explain exactly how it works.

Is your rule something you have found on the internet by any chance, something you feel you have been schooled into believing perhaps?

Lets forget about Earth for a moment. If I asked your to provide a rule for the circular drop of any planet of radius r over a distance of d, what would your formula be?

But if you can't do that, suppose your method is correct, what would be the circular drop on earth be on something the length of a bath? Can you work that out and tell us how much the globe model earth drop by over 1.5m (or 5 feet in ancient language)?

No need to worry about stuff over 100 miles. I've went to 50 up to now so basically this stands.

I live in Washington my mam lives in bedlington so called north of here.
If the world was a globe I would be going uphill to her house, but it isn't it's up and down but mainly flat*.

Actually you would never be going uphill. Always down hill from your standing start. Your globe would have to curve down and away from your vision and so, you'd have to walk down hill consistently.

The earth isn't a globe, there I've proved it
* I know this cos I ride my bike and know when I am going up and down by the changes in atmospheric density. It's hard to peddle against the increased density

Yep it can be very hard to peddle against the wind.

 

[Roman maroni]

Into the drink, grasshopper.

Into the sea most likely, or disintegrate, depending on what's being made and sent ballistic for a short period of time. Missile or effigy. Hmmmm.

No need to worry about stuff over 100 miles. I've went to 50 up to now so basically this stands.

Actually you would never be going uphill. Always down hill from your standing start. Your globe would have to curve down and away from your vision and so, you'd have to walk down hill consistently.



Yep it can be very hard to peddle against the wind.

You're as thick as f***ing pig shit.

 

[DaveH]

Into the drink, grasshopper.

Into the sea most likely, or disintegrate, depending on what's being made and sent ballistic for a short period of time. Missile or effigy. Hmmmm.

No need to worry about stuff over 100 miles. I've went to 50 up to now so basically this stands.

Actually you would never be going uphill. Always down hill from your standing start. Your globe would have to curve down and away from your vision and so, you'd have to walk down hill consistently.



Yep it can be very hard to peddle against the wind.

Ok so lets agree that your square rule is not technically correct and people were right in saying it was wrong, but is actually a quick way for a rough estimate over the sort of distances so it will do for people who want to work in miles, feet and inches?

So there were two questions that came from this. One was these Chicago towers and being able to see them from 50 miles away you were talking about. Got any evidence that this is actually a thing?

The second, as we are hopefully agreeing that your square method works over short distances, it will definitely work for the length of a bath. Can you use your method to calculate the drop in water in a bath?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So there were two questions that came from this. One was these Chicago towers and being able to see them from 50 miles away you were talking about. Got any evidence that this is actually a thing?

Just the news channels that tried desperately to pretend it was a mirage because it was seen.
That's all I can go on.
I can't personally verify it because I've never looked over the waters to Chicago.

You must be logged on to see external links

The second, as we are hopefully agreeing that your square method works over short distances, it will definitely work for the length of a bath. Can you use your method to calculate the drop in water in a bath?

A bath is not required.
What is required is for people like yourself to accept the global model of the size you believe, to have a drop of near 8 inches per mile squared.
You accept this which means the drop shows your globe to be utter nonsense.
We've established it is nonsense. The only thing to do now is try and establish what shape would show us what we see...especially on water.
We can conclude quite easily that water is essentially flat and level if unhindered and at best under a swell or wave action when hindered.

 

[Nobby]

We can conclude quite easily that water is essentially flat

That's a major change in direction, up to this point it has unequivocally been flat

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That's a major change in direction, up to this point it has unequivocally been flat

Unhindered, yes.

 

[Nobby]

Unhindered, yes.

But now it's essentially flat? You have dropped your one truth that "proved" the earth isn't a globe.

If water can conform to another shape the globe "holds water" ( pun intended)

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But now it's essentially flat?
You have dropped your one truth that "proved" the earth isn't a globe.

Nothing's been dropped. Water is essentially flat and level, unhindered.
Do you not understand what essentially means?

If water can conform to another shape the globe "holds water" ( pun intended)

Where's the pun?
I'll bold this bit.
Water conforms to the shape of the container it is placed in.

Water does not conform to the external shape of a ball.

 

[Bobthebasted]

Nothing's been dropped. Water is essentially flat and level, unhindered.
Do you not understand what essentially means?

Yes they all know what it means.

GRAVITY.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Water does not conform to the external shape of a ball.

Except for in reality, where it does.

 

[Nobby]

Do you not understand what essentially means?

Yes, it means it's not absolutely flat, it can have another shape.
Up to now you have said it is absolutely flat and that proves the earth is not a globe.

You have just shot your own argument down

 

[payne]

Just the news channels that tried desperately to pretend it was a mirage because it was seen.
That's all I can go on.
I can't personally verify it because I've never looked over the waters to Chicago.

You must be logged on to see external links

A bath is not required.
What is required is for people like yourself to accept the global model of the size you believe, to have a drop of near 8 inches per mile squared.
You accept this which means the drop shows your globe to be utter nonsense.
We've established it is nonsense. The only thing to do now is try and establish what shape would show us what we see...especially on water.
We can conclude quite easily that water is essentially flat and level if unhindered and at best under a swell or wave action when hindered.

no further discussion required

 

[nahwee]

Any chance of an answer to my post #2795?

 

[DaveH]

Just the news channels that tried desperately to pretend it was a mirage because it was seen.
That's all I can go on.
I can't personally verify it because I've never looked over the waters to Chicago.

You must be logged on to see external links

A bath is not required.
What is required is for people like yourself to accept the global model of the size you believe, to have a drop of near 8 inches per mile squared.
You accept this which means the drop shows your globe to be utter nonsense.
We've established it is nonsense. The only thing to do now is try and establish what shape would show us what we see...especially on water.
We can conclude quite easily that water is essentially flat and level if unhindered and at best under a swell or wave action when hindered.

That is avoiding the question isn’t it. Which is hardly a surprise, you back away quickly as soon as the details look like they are going to show what you are saying as being a load of rubbish.

You say that level water in a bath shows the earth is not a globe, but works on your also curved earth because your curve is slight. Why will you not calculate what the curve of a bath is to see if the curve on the globe is slight too?

We all know the answer and I calculated it earlier. The curve over the length of a bath is a tiny fraction of a millimetre and your own calculations will show that.

It is what I said, contradictions and your own arguments against a globe work against your lemon squeezer earth.

 

[payne]

look at all that complex wiring.....what a waste of time when they just dump it in the sea......NASA morons

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Gelan]

Nukehasslefan is a teacher, too calm in challenge to be a nut...plus he's had you going forever, so yep he's a teacher because you've all learnt a load of stuff

 

[payne]

Nukehasslefan is a teacher, too calm in challenge to be a nut...plus he's had you going forever, so yep he's a teacher because you've all learnt a load of stuff

he's the Hawing of our era. A free thinker.....a special human
proper brazen actually telling us they're actors.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[ned_werby]

Just the news channels that tried desperately to pretend it was a mirage because it was seen.
That's all I can go on.
I can't personally verify it because I've never looked over the waters to Chicago.

You must be logged on to see external links

A bath is not required.
What is required is for people like yourself to accept the global model of the size you believe, to have a drop of near 8 inches per mile squared.
You accept this which means the drop shows your globe to be utter nonsense.
We've established it is nonsense. The only thing to do now is try and establish what shape would show us what we see...especially on water.
We can conclude quite easily that water is essentially flat and level if unhindered and at best under a swell or wave action when hindered.

You're mental