Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

You must be logged on to see external links

Lead is serviced from Uranium. We know this because we can measure with reasonable accuracy the level of radioactive decay. This is a proven science. The people who calculated this are scientists and not in any way ‘so called’.

There’s many peer reviewed papers available which corroborate the experiments, the calculations a fun the findings. This isn’t something you made up to fool the masses. It exists. It is science fact.

I don't believe any of that stuff so it's irrelevant to me.
It's just another story.

To say what? That there would be no drop as in your model or there would be a drop of 48"

There's no drop because there's no convex curve on water that is calm.

 

[legend7]

I don't believe any of that stuff so it's irrelevant to me.
It's just another story.

There's no drop because there's no convex curve on water that is calm.

But that's easily tested and has been done and proven?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But that's easily tested and has been done and proven?

What has been done and proven?

 

[legend7]

What has been done and proven?

Setting up of lights, lazers or other objects across a long distance of water and in simple terms for you they no longer line up but drop away, a bit like as if they were on erm a curve.

 

[Kevj]

I don't believe any of that stuff so it's irrelevant to me.
It's just another story.

There's no drop because there's no convex curve on water that is calm.

You choose not to listen to facts and in place present whimsical notions as more accurate.

You’re an insult to modern education and every person who works in STEM fields

 

[Pancho]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[DaveH]

You never replied to doing a test at keilder which should drop about 48" from memory. That would totally debunk your theory.
In fact didn't the knackers on that flat earth docu debunk themselves trying to prove the earth was flat.

Yes, in Beyond The Curve, Netflix. There were three experiments I think. One repeating the Bedford Levels style experiment but this was light through a number of panels with holes in. They wanted to prove that along the level canal edge you should be able to line up all the holes and see a light at the other end and not have to raise the far end by about a foot as predicted by a global earth. No light got through which they were puzzled about, then one of them said “what if you hold that up a bit?”, raised it by about a foot and they all sadly said “oh”.

Then there was a laser over a lake, similar results though I think they were getting some light just coming through. Basically at a short distance a laser looks like a thin beam, but unless you have a really expensive industrial laser, over a long distance it makes a cone. They were just getting the top cone but I think it also involved moving up a tower or upstairs window as it didn’t work at the lake side. Basically consistent with a curved surface of water.

The last was a $20k gyroscope. “If we set it up in this way and the earth is really spinning then we will get a reading of 3*, if it doesn’t spin like what we think then it will read zero. Oh it is 3, will you look at that….hmmm…well that doesnt mean…..we will have to think about this…..”.

I’ve only ever seen these three experiments performed by flat earthers. Usually it is a deranged musing based on nowt, but credit to them, they set out to try. The first two were a bit cowboy in the equipment but no worse (or even better) than could be done 200 years ago. The third was proper scientific equipment. The end result of all three was results exactly as maths predicts would happen on a globe of the reported size, which spins once every 24 hours.

A bath of water or drawing a line on a window is laughable. Much like a builder knocking up a wall by eye then standing back. I don’t count these as experiments.

* No idea what they were measuring or the value they expected, so not really 3, it just sounds better than x.

You choose not to listen to facts and in place present whimsical notions as more accurate.

You’re an insult to modern education and every person who works in STEM fields

Not really and that is unfair. He doesn’t have an education. I don’t think o-level woodwork is a reflection on a physics PhD.

 

[legend7]

Yes, in Beyond The Curve, Netflix. There were three experiments I think. One repeating the Bedford Levels style experiment but this was light through a number of panels with holes in. They wanted to prove that along the level canal edge you should be able to line up all the holes and see a light at the other end and not have to raise the far end by about a foot as predicted by a global earth. No light got through which they were puzzled about, then one of them said “what if you hold that up a bit?”, raised it by about a foot and they all sadly said “oh”.

Then there was a laser over a lake, similar results though I think they were getting some light just coming through. Basically at a short distance a laser looks like a thin beam, but unless you have a really expensive industrial laser, over a long distance it makes a cone. They were just getting the top cone but I think it also involved moving up a tower or upstairs window as it didn’t work at the lake side. Basically consistent with a curved surface of water.

The last was a $20k gyroscope. “If we set it up in this way and the earth is really spinning then we will get a reading of 3*, if it doesn’t spin like what we think then it will read zero. Oh it is 3, will you look at that….hmmm…well that doesnt mean…..we will have to think about this…..”.

I’ve only ever seen these three experiments performed by flat earthers. Usually it is a deranged musing based on nowt, but credit to them, they set out to try. The first two were a bit cowboy in the equipment but no worse (or even better) than could be done 200 years ago. The third was proper scientific equipment. The end result of all three was results exactly as maths predicts would happen on a globe of the reported size, which spins once every 24 hours.

A bath of water or drawing a line on a window is laughable. Much like a builder knocking up a wall by eye then standing back. I don’t count these as experiments.

* No idea what they were measuring or the value they expected, so not really 3, it just sounds better than x.

Not really and that is unfair. He doesn’t have an education. I don’t think o-level woodwork is a reflection on a physics PhD.

Aye he'll either not reply or discredit it down to pressure, cartoons or pancake batter.
Or something else utterly as ridiculous and not connected.

 

[Kevj]

Not really and that is unfair. He doesn’t have an education. I don’t think o-level woodwork is a reflection on a physics PhD.

I’m not of that opinion. He is quite articulate, albeit noncommittal for the majority of the time. As said previously, he knows what he is saying is wrong and is on a wind up.

 

[payne]

One day when low earth orbit space tourism is common place these types will still say it's a fiction.

 

[DaveH]

One day when low earth orbit space tourism is common place these types will still say it's a fiction.

But really, what does getting a distance from the surface of the earth really tell you? Why should being able to see the damn planet tell you anything about it? That is just crazy talk. And of course, any craft will have those magic windows that are normal at ground level but turn into fish eye lenses at high altitudes. I wish they would not use them, then we would know for sure.

What I find amusing is those that say “but we are still relying on what some greek thousands of years ago said after putting a stick in the ground, why has science not progressed?”. All the while, conveniently ignoring all science performed since then and everything launched into space.

 

[payne]

But really, what does getting a distance from the surface of the earth really tell you? Why should being able to see the damn planet tell you anything about it? That is just crazy talk. And of course, any craft will have those magic windows that are normal at ground level but turn into fish eye lenses at high altitudes. I wish they would not use them, then we would know for sure.

What I find amusing is those that say “but we are still relying on what some greek thousands of years ago said after putting a stick in the ground, why has science not progressed?”. All the while, conveniently ignoring all science performed since then and everything launched into space.

Them Greeks were smarter than most of us today.

What this thread have shown to me is that there are people walking the planet who aren't smart enough to know they know nowt.

 

[nahwee]

Maybe paying a bit more attention will rectify that.

From your post #867

``It isn't a rim. It's a continuous gradient that arcs up into the dome.``

Sorry, so not an ice rim, but ``a continuous gradient that arcs up into the dome``
Creating a big, flat soup dish like container surely?

As I said,
No one is asking people to believe the globe is a container.
I thought you believed that.

As the story goes, eh?
And we're now talking about explosions rather than natural atmospheric changes to pressure.

Which part of this do you think is a story?
That Krakatoa erupted? That the eruption created a pressure wave? That this wave was mapped as it travelled across the earth? That the nature in which it reverberated around the world could only occur on a globe?

 

[bobster999]

what about this

You must be logged on to see external links

?

To be honest that isn't a good example. There's loads of barrel distortion due to the wide lens used on the iPhone. The horizon's all over the place.

 

[nahwee]

Yes, in Beyond The Curve, Netflix. There were three experiments I think. One repeating the Bedford Levels style experiment but this was light through a number of panels with holes in. They wanted to prove that along the level canal edge you should be able to line up all the holes and see a light at the other end and not have to raise the far end by about a foot as predicted by a global earth. No light got through which they were puzzled about, then one of them said “what if you hold that up a bit?”, raised it by about a foot and they all sadly said “oh”.

Then there was a laser over a lake, similar results though I think they were getting some light just coming through. Basically at a short distance a laser looks like a thin beam, but unless you have a really expensive industrial laser, over a long distance it makes a cone. They were just getting the top cone but I think it also involved moving up a tower or upstairs window as it didn’t work at the lake side. Basically consistent with a curved surface of water.

The last was a $20k gyroscope. “If we set it up in this way and the earth is really spinning then we will get a reading of 3*, if it doesn’t spin like what we think then it will read zero. Oh it is 3, will you look at that….hmmm…well that doesnt mean…..we will have to think about this…..”.

I’ve only ever seen these three experiments performed by flat earthers. Usually it is a deranged musing based on nowt, but credit to them, they set out to try. The first two were a bit cowboy in the equipment but no worse (or even better) than could be done 200 years ago. The third was proper scientific equipment. The end result of all three was results exactly as maths predicts would happen on a globe of the reported size, which spins once every 24 hours.

A bath of water or drawing a line on a window is laughable. Much like a builder knocking up a wall by eye then standing back. I don’t count these as experiments.

* No idea what they were measuring or the value they expected, so not really 3, it just sounds better than x.

Not really and that is unfair. He doesn’t have an education. I don’t think o-level woodwork is a reflection on a physics PhD.

Strange how they willing to accept the science... until it does'nt support their beliefs.

Is there anything out there, experiments, tests, calculations that support the flat earthers where you could say, Oh, that deserves a closer look?

 

[DaveH]

From your post #867

``It isn't a rim. It's a continuous gradient that arcs up into the dome.``

Sorry, so not an ice rim, but ``a continuous gradient that arcs up into the dome``
Creating a big, flat soup dish like container surely?

As I said,
No one is asking people to believe the globe is a container.
I thought you believed that.



Which part of this do you think is a story?
That Krakatoa erupted? That the eruption created a pressure wave? That this wave was mapped as it travelled across the earth? That the nature in which it reverberated around the world could only occur on a globe?

Yes, but observed by who. People who detected this wave were expecting it to behave like a globe so that is what they saw. The mind can be easilly led when you have years of one idea drummed into you, you lose the power of independent thought and just stick to what you know because your mind is conditioned to follow the global myth. Anything the used to calculate the curve would have been designed to force the idea of the curve, it proves nothing and you are sounding desperate now.

Can you show what they did and can you prove their results showing the curve? I very much doubt it.


See what I did there? I genuinely don’t know anything about the measurements of this power wave, how it travelled, what they calculated or how they did it. I know there has been other seismic events that has been detected on the other side of the earth and given insight to the interior, but I don’t know about this one. But with a bit of waffle, a hint of mind washing, I’ve dismissed that evidence as nothing, without even looking at it. I also implied that you are a bit stupid for following and don’t have the brains to do it yourself. I asked questions and challenged you to do some work.

Now you have to reply and defend yourself, put in more effort defending this evidence and perhaps slowly explain it to me, otherwise you are perhaps as stupid as I implied. Hopefully this has angered you into a heated response. Either way, I expect a big response now. If you do reply, I’ll pick up on the very first part, say I don’t understand and really frustrate you by not actually getting into the details of your evidence. If you mention it a week later, I’ll remember that you dug yourself into a hole, could not explain it (to me) and it therefore has zero evidence.

This game is easy.

Strange how they willing to accept the science... until it does'nt support their beliefs.

Is there anything out there, experiments, tests, calculations that support the flat earthers where you could say, Oh, that deserves a closer look?

Not that I have seen. Literally look at a bath tub or a plane flying south will constantly have to be in a dive to avoid flying off into space.

 

[nahwee]

Yes, but observed by who. People who detected this wave were expecting it to behave like a globe so that is what they saw. The mind can be easilly led when you have years of one idea drummed into you, you lose the power of independent thought and just stick to what you know because your mind is conditioned to follow the global myth. Anything the used to calculate the curve would have been designed to force the idea of the curve, it proves nothing and you are sounding desperate now.

Can you show what they did and can you prove their results showing the curve? I very much doubt it.


See what I did there? I genuinely don’t know anything about the measurements of this power wave, how it travelled, what they calculated or how they did it. I know there has been other seismic events that has been detected on the other side of the earth and given insight to the interior, but I don’t know about this one. But with a bit of waffle, a hint of mind washing, I’ve dismissed that evidence as nothing, without even looking at it. I also implied that you are a bit stupid for following and don’t have the brains to do it yourself. I asked questions and challenged you to do some work.

Now you have to reply and defend yourself, put in more effort defending this evidence and perhaps slowly explain it to me, otherwise you are perhaps as stupid as I implied. Hopefully this has angered you into a heated response. Either way, I expect a big response now. If you do reply, I’ll pick up on the very first part, say I don’t understand and really frustrate you by not actually getting into the details of your evidence. If you mention it a week later, I’ll remember that you dug yourself into a hole, could not explain it (to me) and it therefore has zero evidence.

This game is easy.

Not that I have seen. Literally look at a bath tub or a plane flying south will constantly have to be in a dive to avoid flying off into space.

Kin’ell Dave!
You had me going for a minute there!
I thought you’d lost it!

 

[DaveH]

Kin’ell Dave!
You had me going for a minute there!
I thought you’d lost it!

I’m afraid I just can’t think that freely for real.

One point I was making is, it is easy to dismiss stuff without reason, it is easy to tell someone saying something they are a sheep, it is hard to prove and explain something, especially something that doesn’t exist. But it gets attention, which I think is the bottom line for these loons.

 

[payne]

I’m afraid I just can’t think that freely for real.

One point I was making is, it is easy to dismiss stuff without reason, it is easy to tell someone saying something they are a sheep, it is hard to prove and explain something, especially something that doesn’t exist. But it gets attention, which I think is the bottom line for these loons.

no actual evidence mate. all just parroted from authority

 

[fyl2u]

I have no clue whatsoever.

That's the first true fact you've stated on the entire thread.