Put a flat earthier into space

[DaveH]

Argue as much as you feel but no matter what distance is chosen it's always going to be level.

Yes and we keep asking how do you know it is level, you say hold a level over it like a spirit level, we ask what the amount of curve would be and then you waffle.

Meanwhile you talk about your approximation of a curve of 8 inches per mile squared but refuse to apply this to your water level 'proof' because even your own rule shows the difference over the length of a bath or spirit level is in the microns which can't be measured with a spirit level and the naked eye. At that scale a spirit level is not even accurate enough.

Basically if this is your main proof, it is no a proof at all because your own argument negates it, which is why I say you have a tangled mess of contradictions.

By saying "Fall per mile squared" you're still showing that you don't even understand the maths of curves.

"Something per SomethingElse squared" is the formula for a parabola, not a spheroid.

You're still just closedmindedly clinging to the acquired knowledge you've been brainwashed with. These are nothing more than stories that were written by The Man that wrote the Flat Earth guidebook 200 years ago, and you're just repeating them back to us like a happy parrot

While it is true that the rule is wrong, it is pretty close under 4000 km that as a rough guide it is fine to use.

It clearly falls down if you are trying to measure a curve in microns over a very small scale, very very accurately. But even over 200 miles the difference between the rules is only 78cm so if you are talking about the drop to a building that far away (and it would have to be a huge building) does the square rule predicting you should be able to see 78cm less, really matter?

If it works for him over the scales we are talking, I'd say go with it. Lets see if he can use it to calculate the drop of a spirit level over the length of a bath.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes and we keep asking how do you know it is level, you say hold a level over it like a spirit level, we ask what the amount of curve would be and then you waffle.

The trouble with this global nonsense is, it's all down to fictional figures when any logical person who wants to question it all only has to do the simplest stuff to see that it is nothing like a spinning globe we supposedly live on.

Water level is perfect for construction and sailing and conforming to any container it is placed into, flat and level.
It does not conform to any convex curve to show any level and will not ever.

As basic as it can get.
People are being asked or even told to accept all kinds of stuff that their sense just do not agree to but following a narrative is much easier to do than going against it when you're dealing with mass adherence.

Meanwhile you talk about your approximation of a curve of 8 inches per mile squared but refuse to apply this to your water level 'proof' because even your own rule shows the difference over the length of a bath or spirit level is in the microns which can't be measured with a spirit level and the naked eye. At that scale a spirit level is not even accurate enough.

A simple set of water pipes will show a level over a short distance in order to build a level contsruction.

Basically if this is your main proof, it is no a proof at all because your own argument negates it, which is why I say you have a tangled mess of contradictions.

It's all the proof needed but there's a lot more questions than ever there is answers that show any proof of a globe we're coaxed into believing.

 

[fyl2u]

Yep. the one thing I am.

Lots of things but water level alone nails it.

No, it doesn't.

You still haven't given us an honest example of an experiment that shows that water level proves the earth isn't a globe.

 

[What A Waster]

Aye I misread thinking you said north America.

However it still doesn't change my stance on the land mass.
You're still offering a 9000 mile distance as if water runs down a slope.
You seem to think the gradient is so big it has to make water deeper than it has to be.

I can only think you believe my take on the map is having landmass sitting high up a mountain.

You said the land rises up out the water so that water doesn't have to run down a slope. Fair enough. That fits with your idea that water can't stick to a curve. But if the solid earth is lemon squeezer shaped then the depths of the oceans in the north will have to be shallower than in the south. Like the drawing you said looks like what you were getting at. The Americas is a solid body of land so Ushuaia being the world's most southern city is about 9000 miles away from northern Alaska. So that's quite a long body of land. For a lemon squeezer to work you're gonna need ridiculously deep oceans in the south.

 

[DPTT]

No, it doesn't.

You still haven't given us an honest example of an experiment that shows that water level proves the earth isn't a globe.

Am seriously (and worryingly) really confused about his bath tub experiment now like, I just don’t get it

How can water in a 5ft tub prove the earth is not a globe
Am I missing summit or am I finally just too thick to understand

 

[fyl2u]

Am seriously (and worryingly) really confused about his bath tub experiment now like, I just don’t get it

How can water in a 5ft tub prove the earth is not a globe
Am I missing summit or am I finally just too thick to understand

It doesn't.

He doesn't understand what he's trying to disprove so he's parroting off some standard flat earth misconceptions that he's learned from "authority" but never actually thought about logically.

Then when questioned on the details and shown why he's wrong, he just waffles and changes the subject.

 

[legend7]

Aye I misread thinking you said north America.

However it still doesn't change my stance on the land mass.
You're still offering a 9000 mile distance as if water runs down a slope.
You seem to think the gradient is so big it has to make water deeper than it has to be.

I can only think you believe my take on the map is having landmass sitting high up a mountain.

If the deepest ocean is only 6 miles deep and my drawing left to right is 9000 miles the water would be about as deep as the width of a ballpoint at deepest meaning the landmasses would all be pretty much level so no orange squeezer shape.
Or if my section follows the orange squeezer the oceans to the right (South america) are hundreds and hundreds of miles deep.

 

[DaveH]

The trouble with this global nonsense is, it's all down to fictional figures when any logical person who wants to question it all only has to do the simplest stuff to see that it is nothing like a spinning globe we supposedly live on.

Water level is perfect for construction and sailing and conforming to any container it is placed into, flat and level.
It does not conform to any convex curve to show any level and will not ever.

As basic as it can get.
People are being asked or even told to accept all kinds of stuff that their sense just do not agree to but following a narrative is much easier to do than going against it when you're dealing with mass adherence.


A simple set of water pipes will show a level over a short distance in order to build a level contsruction.

It's all the proof needed but there's a lot more questions than ever there is answers that show any proof of a globe we're coaxed into believing.

Sigh - lets take that one slowly then. I'll even go into imperial measurements for you.

Do you maintain that a 6 foot spirit level held over a body of water should show the curve of the earth, and the fact it doesn't is proof that the world is not a globe?

 

[payne]

I've missed so much today. Wonderful content.

Sigh - lets take that one slowly then. I'll even go into imperial measurements for you.

Do you maintain that a 6 foot spirit level held over a body of water should show the curve of the earth, and the fact it doesn't is proof that the world is not a globe?

Your maffs is rang pal.

 

[fyl2u]

Water naturally curving.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[payne]

Water naturally curving.

Logon or register to see this image

Planet Earth cgi stock footage

 

[nahwee]

The trouble with this global nonsense is, it's all down to fictional figures when any logical person who wants to question it all only has to do the simplest stuff to see that it is nothing like a spinning globe we supposedly live on.

Water level is perfect for construction and sailing and conforming to any container it is placed into, flat and level.
It does not conform to any convex curve to show any level and will not ever.

As basic as it can get.
People are being asked or even told to accept all kinds of stuff that their sense just do not agree to but following a narrative is much easier to do than going against it when you're dealing with mass adherence.


A simple set of water pipes will show a level over a short distance in order to build a level contsruction.

It's all the proof needed but there's a lot more questions than ever there is answers that show any proof of a globe we're coaxed into believing.

My post #2931, page 147 relates to this.

 

[What A Waster]

And all that took 3 days!

A subject central to his argument, that is constantly in contention, it is a 'simplest and easily provable truth' and he knows 'many people that's proven water to be level and flat' but thinks there is 'no need' to direct anyone to this proof.

I think it speaks volumes for his claims.

In the words of the man himself:

'In my opinion of course'

Clear as day

 

[payne]

Clear as day

He's surely one of the most brainwashed people walking planet earth and needs medical help

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Apologies for the long post and the odd formatting but I have either no internet or a few seconds at a time and have compiled my reply offline.

Re the motion of the Sun, Moon and the planets, in particular Venus

“A predictable manner for which you've been story told.”

No a predictable manner I can see with my own eyes.

“If a plane flies east to west is it stationary in the air while you go west to east on a conveyor belt?”

If you walk the length of a train is the train stationary beneath you?

“You're tracking something that you're told is a planet.
All I'm saying is, your evidence for it is based entirely on that story fitting what you think is a visual description.”

Again, no, I can see it with my own eyes, as could you if you were even half as open minded and questioning as you claim to be. I can see it and decide for myself if it matches the science. It does. Not stories, observable facts. You can see Venus is a globe, you can see it alternately pass in front of and then behind the Sun. Nothing in your cell comes close to explaining this does it?

“All of it makes sense to you because that's the set narrative.
It all made sense to me at one time because I didn't question any of it. I just accepted it for what was told.”

No, it makes sense because it’s fact, observable, testable, repeatable and proven fact. If you travel from East to West in the Northern hemisphere Polaris will always be there to your right.

If you head South, Polaris will gradually appear lower in the sky. Once it dips below the horizon, you’re in the Southern hemisphere. Prove me wrong.

“Water vapour is not exactly the same as liquid water”

“Yes it is, only less dense”

So not exactly the same then.

“What does act strongly against it is dense atmosphere squeezing it up due to the water being expanded and become less dense than the atmosphere it was layered in before applied energy to it expanded it from that dense mass. No gravity needed and this defies the so called gravity explanation.”

And exactly how does atmosphere of any given density know which way is up and down? Without gravity these are meaningless and this defies your so-called alternative explanation.

“I do deliberately choose that standpoint because it is what it is. It is contradictory.”

Nothing makes sense until you learn. By all means refuse to learn, kid yourself that you’re fighting the good fight against all who would lie and mislead you, but remember your musings are based on a scam dreamed up by a snake-oil seller who left school at 9 years old, who has been consistently and repeatedly proven to be wrong for about 200 years.


“I'm refuting it for good reason. Nobody is proving me wrong.
Simple coming out with " your'e wrong" en masse is not proof that you are correct.
My musings do not need to be brought into anything. I don't pass them off as factual. You are passing your stuff off as factual without knowing the facts and purely based on acceptance of explained storylines.”

Firstly, your musings are brought into it because that’s what we’re debating here. As for not passing them off as factual, the so-called nonsense of the global model is very much presented by you as fact no matter how many times you remember to add “in my opinion of course.”

You’re not just being told “you’re wrong” en masse, several people have given you reasons why you’re wrong. You COULD go out and check them for yourself but you choose not to. Don’t pretend that’s the same as questioning because it’s nothing more than denial.

“I believe there's loads of evidence. The issue is in people willing to see it for that, instead of brushing it aside in favour of magical mysteries. That's the key.”

You’ve come out with some whoppers but this is on another level. That right there is the entire thread compressed into two lines.

Never has so much been brushed aside by so few in favour of so little.

 

[nahwee]

Apologies for the long post and the odd formatting but I have either no internet or a few seconds at a time and have compiled my reply offline.

Re the motion of the Sun, Moon and the planets, in particular Venus

“A predictable manner for which you've been story told.”

No a predictable manner I can see with my own eyes.

“If a plane flies east to west is it stationary in the air while you go west to east on a conveyor belt?”

If you walk the length of a train is the train stationary beneath you?

“You're tracking something that you're told is a planet.
All I'm saying is, your evidence for it is based entirely on that story fitting what you think is a visual description.”

Again, no, I can see it with my own eyes, as could you if you were even half as open minded and questioning as you claim to be. I can see it and decide for myself if it matches the science. It does. Not stories, observable facts. You can see Venus is a globe, you can see it alternately pass in front of and then behind the Sun. Nothing in your cell comes close to explaining this does it?

“All of it makes sense to you because that's the set narrative.
It all made sense to me at one time because I didn't question any of it. I just accepted it for what was told.”

No, it makes sense because it’s fact, observable, testable, repeatable and proven fact. If you travel from East to West in the Northern hemisphere Polaris will always be there to your right.

If you head South, Polaris will gradually appear lower in the sky. Once it dips below the horizon, you’re in the Southern hemisphere. Prove me wrong.

“Water vapour is not exactly the same as liquid water”

“Yes it is, only less dense”

So not exactly the same then.

“What does act strongly against it is dense atmosphere squeezing it up due to the water being expanded and become less dense than the atmosphere it was layered in before applied energy to it expanded it from that dense mass. No gravity needed and this defies the so called gravity explanation.”

And exactly how does atmosphere of any given density know which way is up and down? Without gravity these are meaningless and this defies your so-called alternative explanation.

“I do deliberately choose that standpoint because it is what it is. It is contradictory.”

Nothing makes sense until you learn. By all means refuse to learn, kid yourself that you’re fighting the good fight against all who would lie and mislead you, but remember your musings are based on a scam dreamed up by a snake-oil seller who left school at 9 years old, who has been consistently and repeatedly proven to be wrong for about 200 years.


“I'm refuting it for good reason. Nobody is proving me wrong.
Simple coming out with " your'e wrong" en masse is not proof that you are correct.
My musings do not need to be brought into anything. I don't pass them off as factual. You are passing your stuff off as factual without knowing the facts and purely based on acceptance of explained storylines.”

Firstly, your musings are brought into it because that’s what we’re debating here. As for not passing them off as factual, the so-called nonsense of the global model is very much presented by you as fact no matter how many times you remember to add “in my opinion of course.”

You’re not just being told “you’re wrong” en masse, several people have given you reasons why you’re wrong. You COULD go out and check them for yourself but you choose not to. Don’t pretend that’s the same as questioning because it’s nothing more than denial.

“I believe there's loads of evidence. The issue is in people willing to see it for that, instead of brushing it aside in favour of magical mysteries. That's the key.”

You’ve come out with some whoppers but this is on another level. That right there is the entire thread compressed into two lines.

Never has so much been brushed aside by so few in favour of so little.

Excellent Post.

I look forward to the mother of all waffles tomorrow morning.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No, it doesn't.

You still haven't given us an honest example of an experiment that shows that water level proves the earth isn't a globe.

There's plenty out there but I'm not standing in anyone's way if they want to think water can conform to a spinning ball and simply stay looking like we observe it.

It's like going into the kitchen and getting a bowl to fill with water and someone saying " what are you doing with that bowl" and I say " filling it with water" and they say, " here....here's a ball, pour it all over that, that'll hold it all."

Nuts....but there it is. That's what we're coaxed into believing.

You said the land rises up out the water so that water doesn't have to run down a slope. Fair enough. That fits with your idea that water can't stick to a curve. But if the solid earth is lemon squeezer shaped then the depths of the oceans in the north will have to be shallower than in the south. Like the drawing you said looks like what you were getting at. The Americas is a solid body of land so Ushuaia being the world's most southern city is about 9000 miles away from northern Alaska. So that's quite a long body of land. For a lemon squeezer to work you're gonna need ridiculously deep oceans in the south.

We can argue this for as long as you want but oceans will be deep but not as deep as you're making out.
You're looking at it from a mountain view as if land is sitting near the top of a big mountain because you're looking at a big hump as if it hundreds of miles high or something.

Am seriously (and worryingly) really confused about his bath tub experiment now like, I just don’t get it

How can water in a 5ft tub prove the earth is not a globe
Am I missing summit or am I finally just too thick to understand

Any experiment with water in any container can show Earth not to be a spinning ball, from a bucket to a sink to a bath to a swimming pool to a pond to a lake to a sea to an oceans.
People should be confused as to how it stays on a spinning ball.

If the deepest ocean is only 6 miles deep and my drawing left to right is 9000 miles the water would be about as deep as the width of a ballpoint at deepest meaning the landmasses would all be pretty much level so no orange squeezer shape.
Or if my section follows the orange squeezer the oceans to the right (South america) are hundreds and hundreds of miles deep.

Only if you think there's a mountain hundreds of miles high and land mass just sits on it.

Sigh - lets take that one slowly then. I'll even go into imperial measurements for you.

Do you maintain that a 6 foot spirit level held over a body of water should show the curve of the earth, and the fact it doesn't is proof that the world is not a globe?

No.
I say any water in any container will conform to it and be flat and level and can be proved with a simple spirit level or any levelling gadget there is.
Water does not curve unhindered.
You can have a small droplet of water that can be crushed by atmosphere around the edges but never curved inside a container. The surface of water is flat and level as a body.

 

[taipeisafc]

Water can never curve inside a container....

You must be logged on to see external links

That depends. Good enough to pressure the seas over area.


Nope. They displace exactly the same.

It's like you going to weigh scrap car whole, seeing the weight then deciding to take it away and come back after you've had it crushed to weigh it again. It's going to weigh the same because the entire car whole displaces the same atmosphere overall as the car when crushed into a block. It's just more dense mass per smaller area as opposed to less dense mass over a wider area. Same displacement on a scale plate..

Volume doesn't come into it. Volume is the atmosphere the dense mass takes up. It's not to be counted.
It's the actual dense mass of the object displacing the atmosphere that counts.
It's all about porosity of the objects which determines how much atmosphere the actual structure will displace of atmosphere, minus what is already part of the porous make up in terms of atmospheric saturation..

I honestly don't know where you're getting this 9000 miles from.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

And what pressure would that be to move the seas over this area? Simple question all it needs is a simple answer which you have so far avoided. I will then look through the data for the measured atmospheric pressure and see what the actual variation is - if it is similar to your number then we have a piece of supporting evidence for your theory replacing gravity, that is how science works.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Apologies for the long post and the odd formatting but I have either no internet or a few seconds at a time and have compiled my reply offline.

Re the motion of the Sun, Moon and the planets, in particular Venus

“A predictable manner for which you've been story told.”

No a predictable manner I can see with my own eyes.

See what?
You see points of moving lights. You do not ever think it's you moving and the lights are stationary but you accept the story that Earth is moving anyway.

“If a plane flies east to west is it stationary in the air while you go west to east on a conveyor belt?”

If you walk the length of a train is the train stationary beneath you?

No, unless you mean the floor inside of the train.
I think you're arguing from a point of you being on a spinning Earth with a perfect spinning atmosphere in unison with that solid Earth and this is your inner train, right?
Not the same argument, is it?
Outside of the train is atmosphere.
Outside of your global Earth train is a supposed vacuum.

The argument does not marry up.

“You're tracking something that you're told is a planet.
All I'm saying is, your evidence for it is based entirely on that story fitting what you think is a visual description.”

Again, no, I can see it with my own eyes, as could you if you were even half as open minded and questioning as you claim to be. I can see it and decide for myself if it matches the science. It does. Not stories, observable facts. You can see Venus is a globe, you can see it alternately pass in front of and then behind the Sun. Nothing in your cell comes close to explaining this does it?

Of course you can see points of light with your own eyes but you do not know what they are. You're told what they are.

“All of it makes sense to you because that's the set narrative.
It all made sense to me at one time because I didn't question any of it. I just accepted it for what was told.”

No, it makes sense because it’s fact, observable, testable, repeatable and proven fact.

None of it is proven as a fact.

If you travel from East to West in the Northern hemisphere Polaris will always be there to your right.

Just as it would if you did it on a circle.

If you head South, Polaris will gradually appear lower in the sky.

Just as it would if you went south on a circle, because you're going away from it and changing angle over distance.

Once it dips below the horizon, you’re in the Southern hemisphere. Prove me wrong.

On a circle your compass would point south if you were walking away from the centre. No need for a spheroid.

“Water vapour is not exactly the same as liquid water”

“Yes it is, only less dense”

So not exactly the same then.

It depends on what you want to view it as.
It's like saying melted toffee is not the same as a bar of toffee when cooled but essentially it's the same thing only less dense.

“What does act strongly against it is dense atmosphere squeezing it up due to the water being expanded and become less dense than the atmosphere it was layered in before applied energy to it expanded it from that dense mass. No gravity needed and this defies the so called gravity explanation.”

And exactly how does atmosphere of any given density know which way is up and down?

Because atmosphere is layered. It's stacked layers of matter.
The denser matter is at sea level and each layer is under less pressure as it stacks. A push on push is happening. Below is resisting above and above is resisting above that layer and using the layer below as a resistance to it's own push into above as a resistance.

It means matter is broken down as it loses dense mass through being pushed up.
Any denser matter pushed into any of those layers results in compressing that atmospheric matter away from the object by the objects own dense mass, minus porosity which becomes part of it.

It results in that pressure pushing back onto the object. Squeezing it back down against a resistance to it, whetehr that be a solid foundation or a liquid, as in water....or maybe just atmospheric resistance if the object is raised then dropped.

Without gravity these are meaningless and this defies your so-called alternative explanation.

Gravity is fictional. It has no real purpose in life, other than to prop up fictional space and Earth supposedly spinning within this fictional space.

“I do deliberately choose that standpoint because it is what it is. It is contradictory.”

Nothing makes sense until you learn.

And this is what I'm doing.

By all means refuse to learn, kid yourself that you’re fighting the good fight against all who would lie and mislead you, but remember your musings are based on a scam dreamed up by a snake-oil seller who left school at 9 years old, who has been consistently and repeatedly proven to be wrong for about 200 years.

Nope. They're based on me going through the very same schooling by the schooled who were schooled by the schooled all the way up to the actual snakeoil salespeople.

“I'm refuting it for good reason. Nobody is proving me wrong.
Simple coming out with " your'e wrong" en masse is not proof that you are correct.
My musings do not need to be brought into anything. I don't pass them off as factual. You are passing your stuff off as factual without knowing the facts and purely based on acceptance of explained storylines.”

Firstly, your musings are brought into it because that’s what we’re debating here.
As for not passing them off as factual, the so-called nonsense of the global model is very much presented by you as fact no matter how many times you remember to add “in my opinion of course.”

The global nonsense is just that. It is fact provable by one simple experiment which I've been over so many times and will stand by.
There's plenty more but they're all argued against and catered for with magical forces and mysteries, which is fine but does not offer a spinning globe any reality.

You’re not just being told “you’re wrong” en masse, several people have given you reasons why you’re wrong.

Of course they have. Reasons that I already know about which are unprovable.

You COULD go out and check them for yourself but you choose not to.

You cann go out and check the basics of actual reality but you choose not to.

Don’t pretend that’s the same as questioning because it’s nothing more than denial.

I could offer the exact same to you which gets us nowhere.

“I believe there's loads of evidence. The issue is in people willing to see it for that, instead of brushing it aside in favour of magical mysteries. That's the key.”

You’ve come out with some whoppers but this is on another level.

Whoppers to you. Not to me. I could be wrong but I have my own take.

That right there is the entire thread compressed into two lines.

In your mind.

Never has so much been brushed aside by so few in favour of so little.

Never has so much been adhered to for so little proof.

 

[nahwee]

Excellent Post.

I look forward to the mother of all waffles tomorrow morning.

He’s consistent if nothing else.