How does the ground pull?
This was explained to you dozens of pages ago. You don't get it. Or you're too obstinate to admit you do get it but refuse to concede it because it shows how ridiculous you're being with your "water doesn't stick to a ball" argument.
How does the ground pull on water to pull down a ships hull into the water enough for stable buoyancy or a piece of lead?
And now you're back to typing gibberish.
Let me ask you this.
If I were to jump into a hole from your north pole to your south pole, where do I stop or do I just fall right through the other side?
It doesn't matter whether it's impossible. Just picture a hole right through. What do you think should happen or what is said to happen if it was feasible?
If the world were completely symmetrical around the north pole-south pole axis, you would accelerate until you reached terminal velocity, then continue to fall at pretty constant speed towards the centre. Once you passed the centre you would immediately begin to slow down until you stopped and began falling back towards the centre. This pendulum motion would continue until you came to a stop in the middle from the loss of energy due to air resistance.
The world isn't symmetrical though, so what would actually happen in reality would be that as you fell towards the centre of the earth, you'd pretty quickly get pulled towards the side of the hole where gravity had a marginally stronger pull, die a horrible death as your body was torn apart by whatever the sides of the hole were made of, and you'd send up a stain on the wall of the hole after probably only falling a few hundred feet.
That makes absolutely no sense.
It makes perfect sense to the open-minded.
It makes no sense to brainwashed sheeple who can't think for themselves and are only capable of parroting off the so-called facts they've learned from their authority figure who wrote the flat-earth guidebook 200 years ago.
But that it an utter bonkers version. It's meaningless.
No, your version is the bonkers version that makes no sense and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Exactly as you might expect from such an argument from authority when your authority is a book written by a lunatic 200 years ago.
I think I'm proving a point to those that can see the utter silliness of water sticking to a globe but I understand I'm proving nothing to people who see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
All you're proving is that you don't understand what it is you're arguing against. You argument seems to make sense
to you because you're not arguing against reality, you're arguing against some bizarre warped version of reality that only exists in your own mind.
And that accuracy is good enough to build skyscrapers. It's good enough to level ground.
They use more sophisticated modern digital versions nowadays to build skyscrapers. Ones that are thousands of times more accurate than trying to use a bubble in a tube and a human eye as a gauge.
It's good enough because it works on an Earth that absolutely is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.
Absolutely IS a spinning globe. No backsies.
See how childish it is to keep repeating "it's not a spinning globe, it's not a spinning globe, it's not a spinning globe" over and over for 200 pages worth of posts?
Of course it won't, to those who believe a global curve, even though they will argue black and blue about a curve over a few miles that absolutely is not there.
Absolutely is there, as has been proven by Hawking's laser/boat experiment.
I don't need to prove it with a bathtub. That's just a basic observation and a simple experiment to start off water levelling off inside a container.
A bucket would suffice but any size container would show the same thing. A levelness and not a concave curve. Ponds or lakes or any water that is calm will show more than enough to prove there's no curvature.
No, if you use a sufficiently accurate measuring device, all the containers you mention would show a curve. You're not using a sufficiently accurate measuring device though.
Of course it isn't. Any child given the chance to argue for flat or curvature would opt for flat where water is concerned, as long as they were not under any peer pressure to do the opposite.
They probably would, until you showed them they were wrong by doing HONEST experiments using sufficiently accurate apparatus, after which they'd say "Wow, look, it really IS curved!"
Because like you, they think their eyes are enough until they're shown how wrong they were.
Because even a child know what their senses tell them just as adults do. Unfortunately when people are schooled, it's so easy to go with the flow, even if a square is said to be a circle.
Indeed. You have been schooled by the Flat Earth founder's book of lies that tells you a circle is a parabola. You're the absolute proof that some people that can't think for themselves will just repeat what they're told by authority figures.
For some reason, while being so adamant that such brainwashing of the feeble-minded is possible, you seem blissfully unaware that you're the one that's been brainwashed.
I don't struggle with that. I actually understand why people struggle with a simple point of water being flat and level when they're told it's curved around a ball.
Water isn't flat. Measure it properly in an HONEST experiment and you'll see. Continue to fake-measure it in your own DISHONEST experiment and you'll never get it.
It's massive peer pressure due to mass indoctrination.
The flat-earth nonsense you keep parroting? Yes it is.
