No you don't, you love to use the word science as if you know what it means, but then you fail at every step when asked to show how your idea of science is supposed to work.
Science is reality. Finding out what that reality is is down to those who try to piece the science together to make the bigger picture of whatever it is they're looking into.
Like the story you keep parroting that the earth isn't a spinning globe? Yeah, that one bemuses me too. Only a complete wackjob with no grasp of science or maths could possibly believe that ridiculous story from the established flat earth narrative that gets parroted to us all as if it's a fact.
I sometimes sit back and have a little cringe at how easy it was to have me duped as a youngster about oceans staying on a big oblate spheroid but I cringed a bit more when I realised how long it took me to question it properly.
Luckily I've managed to get past that piece but there's a lot more stuff that begs questions.
How can you prove that there's no curve of a fraction of a millimetre without a piece of equipment capable of measuring a fraction of a millimetre? It makes absolutely no sense to claim otherwise.
There will be lost of curves. We have hills and mounds and all kinds of off level stuff on Earth.
However, no matter what it is, water will always stay level as it hits any of them and is left to settle. It may leave many mounds protruding the water as the water finds its level around them but the water will be flat and level once unhindered.
Water level is proof of a globe. Prove me wrong.
No need to. If you believe that then you go with that. If you think it doesn't deserve questioning then that's your prerogative.
It should be a red flag that in order to conduct a scientific experiment correctly, you have to use the correct equipment?
That depends on what's deemed as, correct equipment.
Do you even read back what you type?
Yep.
How is using the correct equipment to conduct an experiment anything to do with peer pressure?
I never said it was.
We're trying to determine that a curve of a fraction of a millimetre doesn't exist across the length of a bath of water, so unless you're using equipment capable of determining that curve isn't there, then you're failing at performing the experiment by the purest definition of what you're trying to prove.
You clearly know in your own mind about water level. You clearly know what sea level means. You clearly know what the meaning of level means, yet you allow yourself to be told that curvature means level when a big globe is mentioned.
However, it isn't just a case of having an observable level as we do see it in real time you also have the added in extra of that level staying level even though people believe the globe spins.
It's utter utter nonsense IMO but you're welcome to your mindset.
You're the one trying to manipulate the results of the experiment because so determined to avoid the possibility that it will prove wrong your manipulative set narrative that you've been told by the flat earth society.
I don;t need to manipulate anything. I think the manipulation is pretty clear from the global storyline.
You are now though - you're suffering from the peer pressure of the flat earth society and have been manipulated by their fake science stories to such a degree that now you refuse to question their narrative. It's so sad.
I don't believe in a flat Earth so I think that dispels that.
However, I do believe in level waters.
The coriolis effect is directly caused by a spinning global earth.......how on earth is this separated from the atmosphere being held to the surface of the planet (in an extremely thin layer compared to the size of the earth I might add).The problem with the stuff you come up with as evidence like this "because then their dense mass would overcome the friction of atmosphere when not attached to a foundation and they would certainly end up in a different landing spot, just as any dense mass would when not friction gripped" is that it is utter bollocks so it is impossible to prove anything - you have made up a whole new set of nonsensical physics which cannot be in anyway proven to counterract something you don't believe - I mean friction gripped ffs what utter drivel.
But we know the atmosphere gets thinner and thinner in terms of being a breathable environment and then it gets to a so called vacuum or so close to a vacuum as to be one only 20 miles up (approx), as we're told.
This means the atmosphere has to be grabbed by the rotating solid and not only hold water but also the water also grabbing the atmosphere and not only taking that portion it grabs but also all the rest right up to the vacuum and it all gets pushed around in exact unison with that solid.
Seriously?
But not only that. Any aircraft placed within it just gets grabbed along with that atmosphere if it lifts off the deck, no matter how high.
Honestly man it beggars belief.
Time is not man made, neither are dates - we have made a reference scale to fit against natural phenomenon like every other measurement we use.
Of course time is man made and so are dates.
Now you're getting it. The momentum that lands you in the same place when you jump up and down on a train is exactly the same effect as the momentum that lands you in the same place when you jump up and down on the globe earth. Congratulations, you're starting to progress in arguing against the stupidity you were exhibiting in this same conversation a couple of posts ago.
That's all well and good if that was all the argument...but it isn't.
Which brings us back to the planes and helicopters...etc that are lifted away from the actual solid ground.
And we're told these just also get dragged along even craft at 20 miles in a near vacuum as we're told.
Utter nonsense.
No, it wouldn't. Try it. Jump REALLY HIGH on a train that's moving at a constant speed. You'll still land in the same place because there's no air resistance to slow you down. The inertial reference frame reigns supreme.
You can only jump a tiny amount on a train. Like I mentioned about initial momentum and actual carriage pressure.
If the carriage was 10 feet high and you could jump that height, you would land away from your initial jump because your momentum would be slowed by air resistance being too weak to carry your dense mass with the same momentum.
Nukehasslefan said:
Time and dates are man made.
Whereas everything in Cell-World isn't?
Of course. Time and dates are man made no matter what.
Yes. A plane does cut through the atmosphere. It’s a relatively thin medium, not as dense as liquid and more dense then space. Yes, there will be friction generated at the surface the aeroplane comes into contact with the atmosphere and this friction increases with speed. Or more to the point decreases as the object is in harmony with the atmosphere.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
The atmosphere doesn’t exist in perfect harmony with the earths crust. This is a known science. Go and read books relating to the Coriolis effect.
If the atmosphere doesn't exist in perfect harmony with the Earth's crust then the global spinning Earth is rendered useless because that's what has to be the story in order to make us believe we see what we actually observe in reality.
What we really observe is a stationary Earth with atmosphere that moves in all directions depending on pressure changes and is also why helicopters can hover and not see ground move underneath.
