Put a flat earthier into space

[fyl2u]

Place it on a a flat board on water. Any water and if a large body of calm water, set it in motion over that water and observe no change.

The idiocy grows by the day.

Is there no end to the number of flawed and dishonest experiments you can come up with to try to support the lies you've learned from your flat earth manual?

Your experiment here proves only the fact that wherever on Earth you stand, gravity works in a downward direction and your spirit level will always give you a level reading for the tangent of that direction of gravity.

This new experiment is hilarious. Probably the funniest one yet of your many many flawed and dishonest experiments.

 

[SYB_DC]

That's because the theoretical horizon line is what loses a ship, not a downward curvature.
And that's on a large scale not a small scale.

No, it's not a "theoretical" horizon line. It's the actual horizon.

And that's hardly a large scale. It's literally within the eyesight of a single human. That's the point here: you seem unwilling or unable to engage with the operation of phenomena that are fundamentally based on a larger or smaller scale than perceptible to the naked eye of a single human. It's an almost mind-bogglingly silly approach considering that "human scale" is an arbitrary barometer.

There's no reason that physical phenomena should or do have any perceptional relationship to the narrow range of outcomes that are observable to a human. The world looks very different if something lives on the scale of a bacterium, for example, but that doesn't make the physical characteristics any less real.

 

[fyl2u]

Plain observational logic.

Plain observable stupidity.

I'd expect to see an Earth as a globe. I do not because it is not.

Again proving that you don't have the mental capacity to devise an honest scientific experiment.

 

[legend7]

A gradual gradient that can be many miles high over a massive distance is not going to have water as deep as you make out.
It's not like the water is flowing into the top or near it.

So what roughly is the distance as a drop from the area at the top of the lemon squeezer (alaska) to the bottom (argentina)
And therefore the difference appx in water depth based on my section which you said was what you meant by landmasses rising up through the water

 

[fyl2u]

Correct, I do and it is not a spinning globe either of us live on.

Is too.

To you, it is. To me, it is not. And to you we both live on what you think it is. To me we both live on what I believe is an alternative to what you believe it is, whatever that actually is in its entire reality.

Is, is, is, is, is. No backsies. Ner ner na ner ner.

 

[legend7]

A gradual gradient that can be many miles high over a massive distance is not going to have water as deep as you make out.
It's not like the water is flowing into the top or near it.

So what roughly is the distance as a drop from the area at the top of the lemon squeezer (alaska) to the bottom (argentina)
And therefore the difference appx in water depth based on my section which you said was what you meant by landmasses rising up through the water

It would have to be a big map for it to look anywhere near flat.
Take a look at your very own globe. If you made that 100 feet in size with your water and landmass on it it would still look massively like a big ball, not flat.
So why do you think mine would?

If I made a very large orange squeezer like Earth then you'd see the central gradient and the outer gradient.

Over the entire Earth itself if you were to sail it and then walk the gradient for a while you'll still know you're advancing up a gradient but it would be minimal against your tiny size against the size of Earth.

I really don't get why you can;t see this.

Erm a big map of a globe or a small map still looks like a globe, as that's its shape, it's called scaling.
So your lemon squeezer should still look like a lemon squeezer

 

[fyl2u]

That's your offered reality based on the stories you adhered to.

I refuse to believe anything that requires questioning but that doesn't mean I choose not to accept some things.

That's your offered reality based on the stories from the Flat Earth manual from 200 years ago that you adhere to.

You refuse to question anything that contradicts that book and choose not to accept all the proof that every one of your points in this thread are wrong.

Agreed, it's not flat.

You ARE a flat-earther. Your "cell" model is practically the dictionary definition of a "flat earth".

To deny even this point is to lie to us and to yourself.

 

[legend7]

I'll do a sketch. It'll look garbage but I'll do one on paper.
Just be patient.

Took me about 30 seconds to do my section sketch which you said you agreed with. Can't be that difficult for you to fine tune it to account for the deepest ocean being under 10 miles deep.

 

[Nobby]

That's your offered reality based on the stories from the Flat Earth manual from 200 years ago that you adhere to.

You refuse to question anything that contradicts that book and choose not to accept all the proof that every one of your points in this thread are wrong.


You ARE a flat-earther. Your "cell" model is practically the dictionary definition of a "flat earth".

To deny even this point is to lie to us and to yourself.

He doesn't think it's flat cos it's got mountains and valleys IE it's crumpled not flat on the surface

Don't think he gets the idea that it's still a flat plain rather than a globe or a cube

 

[fyl2u]

He doesn't think it's flat cos it's got mountains and valleys IE it's crumpled not flat on the surface

Don't think he gets the idea that it's still a flat plain rather than a globe or a cube

That's my understanding of his denial about it too.

"Hills, mountains, valleys... see, it's not flat!"

 

[What A Waster]

He doesn't think it's flat cos it's got mountains and valleys IE it's crumpled not flat on the surface

Don't think he gets the idea that it's still a flat plain rather than a globe or a cube

It's that small scale thinking again. My street has got a hill on where the buses go down it so that is how it looks for a boat disappearing over the horizon. As if the horizon is a fixed point that you can go to rather than it relate to where an observer is standing

 

[Nobby]

see, it's not flat!"

Except for the unhindered water, which is most definitely flat and level

 

[legend7]

He doesn't think it's flat cos it's got mountains and valleys IE it's crumpled not flat on the surface

Don't think he gets the idea that it's still a flat plain rather than a globe or a cube

He thinks it's a lemon squeezer not flat and crumpled.
I showed him a flat map and he said nope more like "this" now he's in knots with either underwater countries or very deep seas.
I'm sure his sketch will clear everything up though the bloody genius that he is.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

Nothing was explained.

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.

Ok.
So what is it that pulls that person down. I know you say it's gravity but how would that work in this case.
What is the pulling force?

It makes perfect sense to the open-minded.

Can we ever be open minded in this schooled life?

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.

Aye. Who wrote the global one?

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.

My authority isn't someone who wrote any book 200 years ago. That's your assumption.
As for my version not standing up to scrutiny. What scrutiny?
You mean it doesn't follow a spinning globe mindset?

All you're proving is that you don't understand what it is you're arguing against.

Or you don't.

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.

The globe exists only in your mind. You have no concept of it being a reality.
My thought process is just that and not offered as fact, as I keep saying and will continue to keep saying, when required.

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.

Aye and no taking spinning globes into account....right?

Absolutely IS a spinning globe. No backsies.

Absolutely not a spinning globe.

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?

I tried to tell you it wasn't.

Absolutely is there, as has been proven by Hawking's laser/boat experiment.

Nahhhh. If that's the case then the video I put up proves otherwise.

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.

No...they wouldn't. Absolutely not.

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!"

I'm waiting for honest experiments to prove a globe.

Because like you, they think their eyes are enough until they're shown how wrong they were.

They are enough for many things.

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.

I believe that of you so we'll have to beg to differ on this.

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'd actually say you're projecting but, once again this is a teet for tat carry on which I'm happy to go along with.

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.

Water is certainly not curved, so you measure it in an honest way and prove it to yourself. You do not need to prove it to me, I already know it's flat and level and certainly not curved round a big ball.

The flat-earth nonsense you keep parroting? Yes it is.

I don't go with a flat Earth so it's not me parriting it, it's you parriting it.

So that doesn't answer anything. Instead of hand waving I suggested narrowing it down to a individual basis.

Your analogies with actors and films is the height of stupidity. An actor starts their career by acting. It is the job. Where does a space scientist start and then become in on the lie? It is all just deflection and waffle.

Again you fail to answer a basic question because the physics of your world doesn't work and actually supporting the conspiracy doesn't work. All you can do is repeat what you have watched on YouTube, like your 8 inch per mile squared rule. You cling to that but clearly didn't make it up and just happened to hit on the same rule as other flat earthers, despite being wrong.

Have a think on what you're saying on the actors.

You must be logged on to see external links

How about your globe so it doesn't look like a globe, because this is what you're basically asking of me with my set up....right?

No, it's not a "theoretical" horizon line. It's the actual horizon.

It's a theoretical horizon line.

And that's hardly a large scale. It's literally within the eyesight of a single human. That's the point here: you seem unwilling or unable to engage with the operation of phenomena that are fundamentally based on a larger or smaller scale than perceptible to the naked eye of a single human. It's an almost mind-bogglingly silly approach considering that "human scale" is an arbitrary barometer.

There's no reason that physical phenomena should or do have any perceptional relationship to the narrow range of outcomes that are observable to a human. The world looks very different if something lives on the scale of a bacterium, for example, but that doesn't make the physical characteristics any less real.

Aye we can argue this but it really doesn't take much to understand we do not live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum whizzing around a big few million mile circumference of a sun.

 

[SYB_DC]

It's a theoretical horizon line.

If something disappears over it, it's not "theoretical." You ask for observable things on a scale that even you can comprehend.

Then when presented with such things - a horizon - you call it "theoretical." Something is not "theoretical" if it undeniably, demonstrably, tangibly exists.

That method of argument is fun to laugh at, but it's not worth much more than that.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So what roughly is the distance as a drop from the area at the top of the lemon squeezer (alaska) to the bottom (argentina)

I don't know. Maybe a few miles or so but deeper at other points depending on landmass rising from the gradient, the inner bowl and the outer gradient.

Overall we'd likely be understanding depths of maybe half a dozen miles at some points...maybe more in some areas. It all depends on the unevenness of the bowl or moat or trough or whatever you want to view it as.

And therefore the difference appx in water depth based on my section which you said was what you meant by landmasses rising up through the water

I'll give you a thought process so start to picture it.

Look at the set up as a gradual gradient without country landmass placed upon the model.
Now fill the moat with water and you'll see the water raises up the inner gradient and the outer gradient and levels out around it.

Ok, now raise land from the inner gradient so it comes above water and do exactly the same with the land in the moat raised above water.
Some land will be raised higher and some will be lower.

What is it about that you don't get?

 

[What A Waster]

How about your globe so it doesn't look like a globe, because this is what you're basically asking of me with my set up....right?

No. Just an approximate drawing to get an idea of what you're on about

I don't know. Maybe a few miles or so but deeper at other points depending on landmass rising from the gradient, the inner bowl and the outer gradient.

Overall we'd likely be understanding depths of maybe half a dozen miles at some points...maybe more in some areas. It all depends on the unevenness of the bowl or moat or trough or whatever you want to view it as.

I'll give you a thought process so start to picture it.

Look at the set up as a gradual gradient without country landmass placed upon the model.
Now fill the moat with water and you'll see the water raises up the inner gradient and the outer gradient and levels out around it.

Ok, now raise land from the inner gradient so it comes above water and do exactly the same with the land in the moat raised above water.
Some land will be raised higher and some will be lower.

What is it about that you don't get?

There's no land from the Bering Sea down to Antarctica. That's a distance of about 10,000 miles. How is the water not draining away in the Pacific

 

[legend7]

I don't know. Maybe a few miles or so but deeper at other points depending on landmass rising from the gradient, the inner bowl and the outer gradient.

Overall we'd likely be understanding depths of maybe half a dozen miles at some points...maybe more in some areas. It all depends on the unevenness of the bowl or moat or trough or whatever you want to view it as.

I'll give you a thought process so start to picture it.

Look at the set up as a gradual gradient without country landmass placed upon the model.
Now fill the moat with water and you'll see the water raises up the inner gradient and the outer gradient and levels out around it.

Ok, now raise land from the inner gradient so it comes above water and do exactly the same with the land in the moat raised above water.
Some land will be raised higher and some will be lower.

What is it about that you don't get?

That's what I drew but if it's only 6 miles or so at its deepest point from its shallowest that's a flat earth, 6 mile difference in height over 9000 miles is literally flat.
I think the mags pitch drops about 10 ft from 1 goal to another and that looks flat
We need a sketch, it will literally take you a minute.
A section like I did (that you actually agreed with) but to a rough scale.
If mine was to scale the water would be less than a mm deep on that page

 

[Honess10]

Nothing was explained.

Ok.
So what is it that pulls that person down. I know you say it's gravity but how would that work in this case.
What is the pulling force?


Can we ever be open minded in this schooled life?

Aye. Who wrote the global one?

My authority isn't someone who wrote any book 200 years ago. That's your assumption.
As for my version not standing up to scrutiny. What scrutiny?
You mean it doesn't follow a spinning globe mindset?

Or you don't.

The globe exists only in your mind. You have no concept of it being a reality.
My thought process is just that and not offered as fact, as I keep saying and will continue to keep saying, when required.

Aye and no taking spinning globes into account....right?

Absolutely not a spinning globe.

I tried to tell you it wasn't.

Nahhhh. If that's the case then the video I put up proves otherwise.

No...they wouldn't. Absolutely not.

I'm waiting for honest experiments to prove a globe.


They are enough for many things.

I believe that of you so we'll have to beg to differ on this.

I'd actually say you're projecting but, once again this is a teet for tat carry on which I'm happy to go along with.

Water is certainly not curved, so you measure it in an honest way and prove it to yourself. You do not need to prove it to me, I already know it's flat and level and certainly not curved round a big ball.

I don't go with a flat Earth so it's not me parriting it, it's you parriting it.

Have a think on what you're saying on the actors.

How about your globe so it doesn't look like a globe, because this is what you're basically asking of me with my set up....right?

It's a theoretical horizon line.

Aye we can argue this but it really doesn't take much to understand we do not live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum whizzing around a big few million mile circumference of a sun.

Brilliant

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

“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.”

Fictional figures? Such as? And I love the implication that it's you who is being logical, priceless.


“I don't know the absolute truth of what Earth is and to say I do would be an outright lie.
But then again I don't offer it out as factual. What I do know is, Earth is absolutely not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.”

So, you don’t offer it as factual, except for in the very next sentence.


“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.
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.”

Ok, so you're going to ignore the bit where I said you can see actual planets and pretend they’re just points of light. You would not know what a telescope was unless someone told you, nor a window or the garden, or the sky. So what? I’ve been told they’re planets and when I look, there they are, being all planety and behaving like planets. Planets confirmed until a better explanation comes along.


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.”

Outside of the Earth is the atmosphere. Outside of the atmosphere is vacuum. Not a Hoover, just a big and mostly empty space. What is so hard to grasp about a lump of something being there in the midst of not a lot else?


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.

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


On a globe, yes. If it were flat then you could travel south all the way from north pole to whatever imaginary boundary you think there is and Polaris would still be to the North at the same height


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

You know what a compass is and what it’s famous for? It has one job and pointing South isn’t it no matter what geometric shape you choose.



“Because atmosphere is layered. It's stacked layers of matter.”

It doesn’t matter, there is no up or down without gravity. Your stacked layers don’t get to decide. Without gravity these so called layers of supposedly differing densities have no concept of up or down, there is nothing to stop the higher densities being above, beside or below another density because without gravity they are meaningless.

4000, I'm done. I know I've asked questions but we all know they wont be answered in any meaningful way.