Put a flat earthier into space

[nahwee]

Says nature.

Really? How?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Really? How?

By energy equalling vibration and frequency.
Molecular packing of matter. No free space because free space offers nothing. No energy, no vibration, and no frequencies of them.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I don't think it's true.

Exactly, which would verify a global spinning Earth is not a truth.

Not really in one respect but many people including yourself will look at videos and pictures and stories of being able to do just that and use it as ammo but the reality is, it's blanks.

We all know stuff. It just comes down to what it is we actually believe we know to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in terms of offering that as proof.

They know their scripts better than you do.

Nope. You basically took yourselves down that route.

It's not what it contains it's all about no free space, meaning nothing at all between what you say are scattered particles in that nothing.
The reality is different.
Everything has to be attached. No free space.

Cant be arsed to take that apart piece by piece, it's just all shit.
I've told you I can tell that Earth spins without help from any authority and I'm not lying. You repeatedly say I can't, you're saying I'm a liar, I'm saying again that I'm not. The only way forward from there would involve you actually learning something you don't want to learn.

If we were stood on a cube the sky and the apparent motion of the stars would appear very different. On a pyramid shape it would look different again. The reason the sky looks the way it does is because we're on a globe and that globe spins. You can't detect that but others can. You could, but don't know how. You could find out how but you don't want to.

There is no carbon arc projector and I'm sorry but there's no Santa Claus either. Water curves, both on its own and as a result of gravity as it sits on the surface of the globe. You cant detect that curve but others can. You could learn to detect and measure that too but you simply don't want to.

 

[nahwee]

By energy equalling vibration and frequency.
Molecular packing of matter. No free space because free space offers nothing. No energy, no vibration, and no frequencies of them.

Says who?

 

[jedi_toaster]

Cant be arsed to take that apart piece by piece, it's just all shit.
I've told you I can tell that Earth spins without help from any authority and I'm not lying. You repeatedly say I can't, you're saying I'm a liar, I'm saying again that I'm not. The only way forward from there would involve you actually learning something you don't want to learn.

If we were stood on a cube the sky and the apparent motion of the stars would appear very different. On a pyramid shape it would look different again. The reason the sky looks the way it does is because we're on a globe and that globe spins. You can't detect that but others can. You could, but don't know how. You could find out how but you don't want to.

There is no carbon arc projector and I'm sorry but there's no Santa Claus either. Water curves, both on its own and as a result of gravity as it sits on the surface of the globe. You cant detect that curve but others can. You could learn to detect and measure that too but you simply don't want to.

The documentary on Netflix by the flat earthers did exactly that. And disproved their own theory. It was hilarious.

‘We’d better keep quiet about this’.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

By energy equalling vibration and frequency.
Molecular packing of matter. No free space because free space offers nothing. No energy, no vibration, and no frequencies of them.

No free space would mean no vibration.

 

[fyl2u]

Simple stuff like theodolites, actual water level tubes, containers level marked showing water level. Too many to mention but all relevant.

Those are all things that exist, but how are you drawing any conclusions from them?

Try pouring water on a ball of any size and watch it cascade off of it.
Why does it do this?

Because the water is subject to gravity just like everything else in the universe, and the gravitational pull of the earth is much greater than the gravitational pull of a football, therefore the water is pulled towards the earth, away from the football. It's very simple.

It's because it does not offer any container for it to find its level.

No, it's because the football doesn't have anywhere near the same strength of gravitational pull towards its centre that the planet earth does.

Try pouring water carefully onto a football in outer space, far from any other objects like planets or stars whose gravity might affect your experiment, using a football of sufficient mass and you will see a different result.

It's so simple and provable and so repeatable and observable.

It absolutely is, if you have a football that weighs 5 billion metric tons or so, and are able to deposit it in outer space, far from the pull of any other astronomical bodies.

It proves to build plumb and level.

Yes it does, where "plumb" means "directly towards the centre of the planet, i.e. the "normal" of gravitational pull, and "level" means "at a right angle to the normal, i.e. the tangent to the direction of gravitational pull".

These readings would be identical on a globe Earth where gravity is real, as it would on a lemon-squeezer/flat Earth where gravity is replaced by your magical atmospheric stacking that somehow always stacks according to orientation despite the being no gravitational force working upon it to tell it which way is up.

In a fantasy world, yes. In reality, no.

You're very wrong on this one.

If used correctly it will not prove anything for a globe. Nothing.

It absolutely would, but you've never used one in that way, have you?

Of course, I am. We're all hypocrites. It just depends on what the deal is at any particular time.

And nothing you have come up with has come from yourself and your water on a globe is so hideously flawed it beggars belief.

I follow many people. I take a little bit from many if I think it's relevant to me.
You and every other person do exactly the same.
The argument is not that. The argument or debate is to prove what it is we are adhering to or buying into.
That is exactly why this debate rolls on with nothing given from either side.

What test did you do?

Wrong.

You have to think outside of the box you're put into.
Schooling from cradle to grave.

I've done plenty myself but I only got this far by getting out of that box.

I'm absolutely fine.
You can muse all you want on your fantasy spinning globe with all the trimmings added in and I have no issue with you doing that.

Wrong.

 

[taipeisafc]

Really? How?

It is another made up bit of science with no real basis in anything

No free space would mean no vibration.

He hasn't yet grasped the concept of pretty much anything so there is no chance of him figuring that out.

 

[fyl2u]

I don't think it takes much of anything to prove water will not find its own level on a ball.

Water finds the direction of net force, which on the planet Earth is pretty much directly downwards due to the gravitational pull of the planet being so much stronger than the centrifugal force of the planet's spin. It does not find "level". This is yet another example of you not being able to fathom the enormous scale of the planet.

I can and I have but forgive me if I don't go into it again.

You absolutely haven't. You've suggested a handful of flawed experiments that we've debunked on this thread and one genuine experiment that was already proposed by your fellow globe-deniers who managed to accidentally debunk themselves while being filmed.

It's not what it contains it's all about no free space, meaning nothing at all between what you say are scattered particles in that nothing.
The reality is different.
Everything has to be attached. No free space.

Wrong.

It's convenient.

What you said didn't make any sense. That might be convenient to you, but it's highly inconvenient to anyone trying to have a conversation with you.

Says nature.

Wrong. The absolute opposite in fact.

By energy equalling vibration and frequency.

No it doesn't.

Molecular packing of matter. No free space because free space offers nothing. No energy, no vibration, and no frequencies of them.

That's just gibberish.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I've told you I can tell that Earth spins without help from any authority and I'm not lying.

Maybe you can show me how. Maybe?

You repeatedly say I can't, you're saying I'm a liar, I'm saying again that I'm not.

I'm not calling you a liar. They're your words, not mine.

The only way forward from there would involve you actually learning something you don't want to learn.

I'm all for learning. Do you want to teach me some truth? Bear in mind I will have to question your efforts. If that's ok then fire away.

If we were stood on a cube the sky and the apparent motion of the stars would appear very different.

Based on what evidence?

On a pyramid shape it would look different again.

Baed on what evidence?

The reason the sky looks the way it does is because we're on a globe and that globe spins.

Or we are not on a globe but actually inside of a dome standing on a sort of a circle with lots of more dense ground beneath. You could almost imagine it as a sort of cell. Well, I can.

You can't detect that but others can. You could, but don't know how. You could find out how but you don't want to.

And what's the best way of finding out, between me and you?

There is no carbon arc projector and I'm sorry but there's no Santa Claus either.

I believe the first but suspect the second is and has been a lie for the benefit of us parents adhering to fantasy in favour of our children's happiness.

Water curves, both on its own and as a result of gravity as it sits on the surface of the globe.

Give me an instance.

You cant detect that curve but others can.

If you're talking about a bubble then that actually kills gravity rather than champion it. It kills the whole centre of Earth's so-called pull. A massive contradiction of gravity stories.

You could learn to detect and measure that too but you simply don't want to.

Offer me something.

No free space would mean no vibration.

The opposite.

No, it's because the football doesn't have anywhere near the same strength of gravitational pull towards its centre that the planet earth does.

You can explain this gravitational pull, right?

Try pouring water carefully onto a football in outer space

Nice try but it's like saying try and put a saddle on a unicorn.

, far from any other objects like planets or stars whose gravity might affect your experiment, using a football of sufficient mass and you will see a different result.

Just use a football or even a space hopper or any sized ball and see what happens when you pour water on it.
A clue: It won't make a level pool but it will make a waterfall.

Water finds the direction of net force, which on the planet Earth is pretty much directly downwards due to the gravitational pull of the planet being so much stronger than the centrifugal force of the planet's spin. It does not find "level". This is yet another example of you not being able to fathom the enormous scale of the planet.

And what is this net force?

 

[nahwee]

By energy equalling vibration and frequency.
Molecular packing of matter. No free space because free space offers nothing. No energy, no vibration, and no frequencies of them.

Genuine question.
Says who?

 

[jedi_toaster]

Maybe you can show me how. Maybe?

I'm not calling you a liar. They're your words, not mine.

I'm all for learning. Do you want to teach me some truth? Bear in mind I will have to question your efforts. If that's ok then fire away.

Based on what evidence?

Baed on what evidence?

Or we are not on a globe but actually inside of a dome standing on a sort of a circle with lots of more dense ground beneath. You could almost imagine it as a sort of cell. Well, I can.

And what's the best way of finding out, between me and you?

I believe the first but suspect the second is and has been a lie for the benefit of us parents adhering to fantasy in favour of our children's happiness.

Give me an instance.

If you're talking about a bubble then that actually kills gravity rather than champion it. It kills the whole centre of Earth's so-called pull. A massive contradiction of gravity stories.

Offer me something.

The opposite.

You can explain this gravitational pull, right?

Nice try but it's like saying try and put a saddle on a unicorn.

Just use a football or even a space hopper or any sized ball and see what happens when you pour water on it.
A clue: It won't make a level pool but it will make a waterfall.

And what is this net force?

Where are we, outside of this flat earth and domed ceiling? See, I can buy the whole globes spinning around one another accepted reality, but I can’t see how this flat earth exists in space and time.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Genuine question.
Says who?

Says me.

 

[fyl2u]

You can explain this gravitational pull, right?

I absolutely can.

It's the way the fabric of spacetime distorts around areas of greater mass when compared with areas of less mass (General Relativity); the consequence of which can be observed quantitively as being a force acting upon an object or an acceleration of that object (those things being mathematically "equivalent", as described by the equation F=ma which is Newton's second law).

Nice try but it's like saying try and put a saddle on a unicorn.

Not really, it just shows the apparatus and conditions you would require to conduct the experiment in an honest fashion. Attempting to conduct this experiment with a regular-sized football while standing on the planet Earth will only demonstrate that the gravity of the planet is greater than the gravity of the football.

Just use a football or even a space hopper or any sized ball and see what happens when you pour water on it.
A clue: It won't make a level pool but it will make a waterfall.

Of course it will, because the gravity of the planet is so much greater than the gravity of the football. With the apparatus you're proposing we use, the result would be identical on a lemon-squeezer/flat Earth where atmospheric stacking controls the way things fall, as it would on a globe Earth where gravity controls the way things fall: in both cases, the water would fall downwards towards the floor.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Where are we, outside of this flat earth and domed ceiling? See, I can buy the whole globes spinning around one another accepted reality, but I can’t see how this flat earth exists in space and time.

You can't see how because you're only offered one major set up so I understand that.

An alternative thought process for you.
Think of Earth as a cell among cells, meaning we are basically Earth attached to more Earth-like cells in similar states of growth, mainly and or even demise, like cells of a body. Some thrive and some survive but not all.

Outside to us is nothing as we are looking at what's within and cannot see past our dome because outside of it offers us no vision past our own colour spectrum. We only see what's reflected off of the dome from within.

 

[BigPete]

Says me.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I absolutely can.

It's the way the fabric of spacetime distorts around areas of mass

What is the fabric of spacetime?

when compared with areas of less mass (General Relativity); the consequence of which can be observed quantitively as being a force or an acceleration (those things being mathematically "equivalent", as described by the equation F=ma which is Newton's second law).

To have a force you need something to offer as a force to accelerate a mass. What is it and how does it work?

Not really, it just shows the apparatus and conditions you would require to conduct the experiment in an honest fashion. Attempting to conduct this experiment with a regular-sized football which standing on the planet Earth will only demonstrate that the gravity of the planet is greater than the gravity of the football.

How?

Of course it will, because the gravity of the planet is so much greater than the gravity of the football.

But not great enough to stop a helium balloon from rising above, right?

With the apparatus you're proposing we use, the result would be identical on a lemon-squeezer/flat Earth where atmospheric stacking controls the way things fall, as it would on a globe Earth where gravity controls the way things fall.

Your ball cannot offer a foundation for the atmosphere. It's unworkable.

In both cases, the water would fall downwards towards the floor.

Towards the floor on a globe would be to fall off.
To fall towards the floor on my Earth is to fall into a container and find its level. Simple.

 

[jedi_toaster]

You can't see how because you're only offered one major set up so I understand that.

An alternative thought process for you.
Think of Earth as a cell among cells, meaning we are basically Earth attached to more Earth-like cells in similar states of growth, mainly and or even demise, like cells of a body. Some thrive and some survive but not all.

Outside to us is nothing as we are looking at what's within and cannot see past our dome because outside of it offers us no vision past our own colour spectrum. We only see what's reflected off of the dome from within.

I usually apply Occams Razor to such theories. Your explanation requires huge leaps of faith and logic and would need many people to be involved in a cover up. And usually the people who believe in such alternative theories do so because a) they cannot comprehend complex scientific explanations and cannot come to terms with their inability to grasp them. Or/and b) it makes them feel comforted to think they are privy to ‘information’ that the majority of people are ignorant of, thus engendering a sense of superior intellect.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Maybe you can show me how. Maybe?

Yes I could show you but you'd have to do the seeing for yourself.
And you wont.

I'm not calling you a liar. They're your words, not mine.

Yes you are. Repeatedly.

I'm all for learning. Do you want to teach me some truth? Bear in mind I will have to question your efforts. If that's ok then fire away.

If I thought for one second that you wanted to learn I might try, but you have to remember that we now have close to eight hundred pages of you showing how unwilling you are. Also, I have already explained more than once within those eight hundred pages as have others so....

Based on what evidence?

Baed on what evidence?

Common sense. Geometry.

Or we are not on a globe but actually inside of a dome standing on a sort of a circle with lots of more dense ground beneath. You could almost imagine it as a sort of cell. Well, I can.

You might recall me mentioning it but for the sky to appear as it very definitely does, but as the result of a projector, that projector would simply have to be at the dead centre of a sphere with nothing blocking its line of sight to that sphere. Nothing to cast shadows, therefore nothing for you to stand on.

And what's the best way of finding out, between me and you?

I should really take a leaf from your book and just direct you back to this very thread where it has been said already, but you need to look at the "apparent motion" of the stars and planets and the Sun. You already gave up didn't you?

I believe the first but suspect the second is and has been a lie for the benefit of us parents adhering to fantasy in favour of our children's happiness.

The first is entirely made up without any supporting evidence plus lots of evidence against. The second is only relevant because you insist on bringing it up at every opportunity.

Give me an instance.

The sea.
Rain.
Those drops of piss you probably leave all over your bog seat.
These -

You must be logged on to see media items

You must be logged on to see media items

And of course those ships disappearing bottom first.

If you're talking about a bubble then that actually kills gravity rather than champion it. It kills the whole centre of Earth's so-called pull. A massive contradiction of gravity stories.

Firstly I wasn't talking about a bubble and secondly no it does not in any way kill off Earths centre of gravity. There is no contradiction between bubbles and gravity.

Offer me something.

Like what? Money to put towards a spirit level a mile long?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I usually apply Occams Razor to such theories. Your explanation requires huge leaps of faith and logic and would need many people to be involved in a cover up.

It depends on what you mean by many.
It would certainly involve quite a few spread out but then again we also have to look at the many reasons why many would cover up and why they would be on the low end of the scale as opposed to those at the top.

And usually the people who believe in such alternative theories do so because a) they cannot comprehend complex scientific explanations and cannot come to terms with their inability to grasp them.

That could be very possible. But also it's possible they see the original offering as basic garbage and easily debunked with simple science.

Or/and b) it makes them feel comforted to think they are privy to ‘information’ that the majority of people are ignorant of, thus engendering a sense of superior intellect.

It could also be that. I suppose you get a mixture of people thinking so many things.
It could also be that a person may believe they go with a better explanation and feel they are rid of the indoctrinated belief system forced on them for a spinning globe.

Lots of stuff.
And also applying Occam's razor is not as straightforward as it appears when people are siding strongly with a mass majority and fear going against it will incur severe ridicule, which would put many people off from actually taking an alternative view or at least not making it obvious they are.