• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


High Entropy said:
Gonna smash through the dome this afternoon with a big rocket !

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
Apparently, NASA did it all in 1969 with no extra boosters on the rocket. What's happened there?
It's been going backward for long enough, it seems.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
The irony!

It doesn't work by using a parabola, 8 inches per mile squared is the formula for a parabola.

No-one (other than you, incorrectly) is using a parabola to explain anything, as you'd have known long ago if you didn't just reject whatever anyone told you.

Absolutely priceless given that you've spent this entire thread quoting from it and trying to enforce its rules regarding "appeals to authority" which come from the same place.

Self tucked?
Click to expand...
Try again.
 
Last edited:
DPTT said:
After all these months I still don’t understand how his bath tub experiment proves the earth is not a globe 🌎 🥴
Click to expand...
If you draw a line around your bath you can fill the bath up to the line and the water is flat (ie no drop) across the length of the bath.

This proves water is flat and therefore by extension the seas and therefore the earth are flat.

Gloriously ignoring issues of scale and accuracy of measurement
 
Nobby said:
If you draw a line around your bath you can fill the bath up to the line and the water is flat (ie no drop) across the length of the bath.

This proves water is flat and therefore by extension the seas and therefore the earth are flat.

Gloriously ignoring issues of scale and accuracy of measurement
Click to expand...

And the thickness of the felt tip pen used to draw the line.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
The Earth as shown from supposed space is a ball. It's a globe as shown.
Tell me about this parabola and how it works on this globe we are shown.
Click to expand...
It was you who first introduced into this thread the expression 8 inches per mile squared to calculate the earth's curve.

It has been pointed out repeatedly by others on this thread that you cannot use that expression to determine the curve of a sphere because it refers to a parabola.

You have been told from whence this erroneous mathematical expression in relation to the globe first originated, and this was in an entirely fallacious pamphlet, Zetetic Astronomy, written by Samuel Rowbotham and first published in 1881.

This mathematical expression keeps cropping up because it is still used entirely disingenuously by snake oil salesmen on flat earth sites to con gullible and scientifically illiterate people such as yourself.

You cannot and never have been able to use 8 inches per mile squared to calculate the curvature of the earth.

This is the correct way:

You must be logged on to see external links


Edit: I'm more than happy to have the above information 'peer reviewed' by other members more adept at maths than myself - and that's not a high bar.
 
Last edited:
Pancho said:
It was you who first introduced into this thread the expression 8 inches per mile squared to calculate the earth's curve.

It has been pointed out repeatedly by others on this thread that you cannot use that expression to determine the curve of a sphere because it refers to a parabola.

You have been told from whence this erroneous mathematical expression in relation to the globe first originated, and this was in an entirely fallacious pamphlet, Zetetic Astronomy, written by Samuel Rowbotham and first published in 1881.

This mathematical expression keeps cropping up because it is still used entirely disingenuously by snake oil salesmen on flat earth sites to con gullible and scientifically illiterate people such as yourself.

You cannot and never have been able to use 8 inches per mile squared to calculate the curvature of the earth.

This is the correct way:

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
He's now going to claim never to have used this equation in an argument
 
Pancho said:
It was you who first introduced into this thread the expression 8 inches per mile squared to calculate the earth's curve.

It has been pointed out repeatedly by others on this thread that you cannot use that expression to determine the curve of a sphere because it refers to a parabola.

You have been told from whence this erroneous mathematical expression in relation to the globe first originated, and this was in an entirely fallacious pamphlet, Zetetic Astronomy, written by Samuel Rowbotham and first published in 1881.

This mathematical expression keeps cropping up because it is still used entirely disingenuously by snake oil salesmen on flat earth sites to con gullible and scientifically illiterate people such as yourself.

You cannot and never have been able to use 8 inches per mile squared to calculate the curvature of the earth.

This is the correct way:

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

You’re wasting your time and efforts unfortunately. A quick search shows ‘we’ collectively have argued this point going back to October last year. Nearly a full cycle around the sun.
 
Nobby said:
He's now going to claim never to have used this equation in an argument
Click to expand...
Kevj said:
You’re wasting your time and efforts unfortunately. A quick search shows ‘we’ collectively have argued this point going back to October last year. Nearly a full cycle around the sun.
Click to expand...
Thanks lads.

I'm just trying to draw a line under this one sleight of hand.

Let's see how it goes.
 
Pancho said:
Thanks lads.

I'm just trying to draw a line under this one sleight of hand.

Let's see how it goes.
Click to expand...

Good luck. I fear you will only achieve being more frustrated. Despite collectively providing many irrefutable proofs, he seems to be quite thick skinned and will argue black is white.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Anyone can do as many as they wish to see we do not live on a spinning globe. You certainly don't need anything from me to prove that but it's down to each individual as to what they want to take from anything.
Click to expand...

I just did two experiments with water level:

1. I filled up my bath with water and drew a line all around the bath with a sharp pencil to mark the level of the water. I then used a spirit level and a flexible rule to draw another line all the way around the bath perfectly plumb at the very centre and then examined the two lines all the way around using a magnifying glass. As expected, the two lines diverged more from each other the further away from the centre I got, proving without a doubt that the water is in fact curved, despite the curve being imperceptible to the human eye.

2. I put a spirit level on a raft to make sure the raft was perfectly flat, and put a laserpointer on top of the spirit level to make sure it was completely flat too, and pushed the raft across a lake. Next to me on the shore was a vertical plank of wood with the starting height of the laser point marked on it. The further away the raft got, the higher up the board the laser pointed, further and further above the original mark, again proving without a shadow of a doubt that water is in fact curved just as you'd expect on a globe earth.

So there we go, water level nails it. Water level does indeed blow the flat/dome earth model out of the water.
Nukehasslefan said:
You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

Almost like the ability to not be detected by radar, or to fly through the atmosphere of the earth at mach 7, weren't priorities with the lunar lander. Who would have thought it?
 
Last edited:
fyl2u said:
Almost like the ability to not be detected by radar, or to fly through the atmosphere of the earth at mach 7, weren't priorities with the lunar lander. Who would have thought it?
Click to expand...

Almost like the lunar lander was designed to be as light as possible on the basis it needed to carry sufficient fuel to take off and overcome the gravity of the moon as opposed to the the blackbird who had access to unlimited fuel here on earth.
 
fyl2u said:
I just did two experiments with water level:

1. I filled up my bath with water and drew a line all around the bath with a sharp pencil to mark the level of the water. I then used a spirit level and a flexible rule to draw another line all the way around the bath perfectly plumb at the very centre and then examined the two lines all the way around using a magnifying glass. As expected, the two lines diverged more from each other the further away from the centre I got, proving without a doubt that the water is in fact curved, despite the curve being imperceptible to the human eye.

2. I put a spirit level on a raft to make sure the raft was perfectly flat, and put a laserpointer on top of the spirit level to make sure it was completely flat too, and pushed the raft across a lake. Next to me on the shore was a vertical plank of wood with the starting height of the laser point marked on it. The further away the raft got, the higher up the board the laser pointed, further and further above the original mark, again proving without a shadow of a doubt that water is in fact curved just as you'd expect on a globe earth.

So there we go, water level nails it. Water level does indeed blow the flat/dome earth model out of the water.


Almost like the ability to not be detected by radar, or to fly through the atmosphere of the earth at mach 7, weren't priorities with the lunar lander. Who would have thought it?
Click to expand...
Your spirit level and laser pointer are clearly faulty if they have detected any sort of curve. Was you bath a mile squared in size in order to measure the parabola correctly? Or something
 
Nukehasslefan said:
You must be logged on to see external links


Let's hope they offer us a better setup than the tin foil and whatnot.
Maybe this time colleges or even university kids may knock up something a bit better than the schools did back then.

There's no hole being dug. This applies to all of us.
You have offered zero proof of anything except appeals to authority.
I can be classed in that bracket from your side. This is why the argument is ongoing because nobody offers direct proof that another will accept.

You and I can argue that we do but it comes down to whoever wishes to actually question whatever side of an argument as having more potential than another.

I'm 100% sure we do not live on a spinning globe in the space they tell us about.
Clear and simple experiments show me that. Simple logical observations show me that.

You disagree and that's why you're fully engrossed in the global system, which is fine by me because many are and that's the narrative most follow.

It's all good to watch. I used to watch Buck Rogers in the 25th century and star trek (the older version). And when I was a kid I actually watched lost in space. And so on.
Nothing wrong with watching sci-fi.
It's like a time travel film. They can offer your mind an "I wonder" but the reality is somewhat different.

Nothing wrong with people believing in things they can't verify to be real or not. It's all down to each individual to decide in whatever way they see fit.
Click to expand...
You really are thick :lol:
:lol::lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top