Put a flat earthier into space

[Roman maroni]

It's proved but not accepted because it doesn't for the narrative of the global nonsensical model.

Atmospheric density is in the way.
Your globe would not offer the sight of those buildings at 50 miles. It would mean a drop of 1666 feet based on your Earth.
They're seen because they're not on any globe.

How anyone with a functioning brain thinks the world is flat, beyond the evidence

My curve is minor. Your curve is a ball and spinning, as we're told. Big difference.
If you wanted to argue that you lived on the top portion of a non spinning globe then you could use the water argument in an indentation. Unfortunately it would screw up all the other gunk we're told about the ball and the magical properties needed to keep it alive in people's heads but never in reality.

At the end of the day, where is the maps/photographic evidence for this mythical flat earth, there is plenty for the globe, so where is it?

It's proved but not accepted because it doesn't for the narrative of the global nonsensical model.

Atmospheric density is in the way.
Your globe would not offer the sight of those buildings at 50 miles. It would mean a drop of 1666 feet based on your Earth.
They're seen because they're not on any globe.

How anyone with a functioning brain thinks the world is flat, beyond the evidence is burying their head in the sand.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

just get in the bath with a spirit level and you're sorted....proper easy to test and repeatable

Go anywhere and test it. You don't need to actually get in a bath unless you need a good wash. You can just wait till you get out and then let the water conform back to the container then put a level on it.

A simple bath or a swimming pool or a pond or a lake, frozen or liquid.
Then try the same thing on a ball.

surely everyone likes living in a cell

If we are, as I believe we may well be, then we have no choice.

 

[Nobby]

Go anywhere and test it. You don't need to actually get in a bath unless you need a good wash. You can just wait till you get out and then let the water conform back to the container then put a level on it.

A simple bath or a swimming pool or a pond or a lake, frozen or liquid.
Then try the same thing on a ball.

What type of level? What surface area of water, how accurate should the measurement scale be.
What correction needs to be factored in for a meniscus and how do you that correction?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How is it proved? Show us your method, data and conclusions, so we can replicate your results that's how proof works.

Otherwise your one truth that you build everything else on has no more merit than any of your other "musings"

You're welcome to go with whatever you believe, as you know. I have no need to prove anything to you. You can easily do this yourself. If you don't want to or reject what's observable then that's your right and I have no issue with it.

 

[taipeisafc]

So it is easily and 100 percent proven but you cant actually prove or offer any proof then. Kind of a flaw in the evidentiary process.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No it wouldnt the drop is 6 inches per mile iirc so c.25 feet (took me 3 bastard edits to get that right) anything 1000 feet would be easily visible

Just under 8 inches per mile squared.
I explained this.
8 drop inches for the first mile. The second mile is squared. So it's 8 inches x the 2 miles which is 16 inches drop, then squared which is 2 x the 16 inch drop which is squared, equaling a 32 inch drop.

The third mile would be 8 inches x the 3 miles which is 24 inches and now we square that 3 miles which is now 3 x 24 inches = 72 inch drop after 3 miles. Or 6 feet.

I could go on and on but you should get the picture.
50 miles would be 50 x 8 inches which is 400 inches, then you need to square it which now becomes 50 x the 400 inches equalling 20,000 inches. Change that to feet and you divide by 12 inches per foot into the 20,000, leaving you with 1666 feet drop from your starting point.

Add into that the tilting that would be going on over distance then you can easily understand why the global model is complete and utter nonsense among many things that show it up, including the major one of water level.

How anyone with a functioning brain thinks the world is flat, beyond the evidence

I don't think the world's flat.

At the end of the day, where is the maps/photographic evidence for this mythical flat earth, there is plenty for the globe, so where is it?

There's plenty of maps but the global one is the flavour of the times regardless of it being silly.

How anyone with a functioning brain thinks the world is flat, beyond the evidence is burying their head in the sand.

All flat, I would agree but then again I don't know anyone who does think that. Maybe there are some.
Imagine thinking we're on a big ball spinning in a vacuum where oceans just stay doing the things we observe. I used to be one of those. It was called severe indoctrination to follow a belief system that offered zero proof of anything to back it up.

It takes a lot to think outside of that box especially with all the gunk being peddled. In my opinion.

 

[taipeisafc]

Just under 8 inches per mile squared.
I explained this.
8 drop inches for the first mile. The second mile is squared. So it's 8 inches x the 2 miles which is 16 inches drop, then squared which is 2 x the 16 inch drop which is squared, equaling a 32 inch drop.

The third mile would be 8 inches x the 3 miles which is 24 inches and now we square that 3 miles which is now 3 x 24 inches = 72 inch drop after 3 miles. Or 6 feet.

I could go on and on but you should get the picture.
50 miles would be 50 x 8 inches which is 400 inches, then you need to square it which now becomes 50 x the 400 inches equalling 20,000 inches. Change that to feet and you divide by 12 inches per foot into the 20,000, leaving you with 1666 feet drop from your starting point.

Add into that the tilting that would be going on over distance then you can easily understand why the global model is complete and utter nonsense among many things that show it up, including the major one of water level.

No it isnt, we have been through this once you are wrong and you showed a photo showing how wrong you were. Learn some maths and try again

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What type of level? What surface area of water, how accurate should the measurement scale be.
What correction needs to be factored in for a meniscus and how do you that correction?

An inch drop over just one mile all around you. One simple mile.
There isn't any meniscus on a large body of water, so what are you getting at?

 

[nahwee]

Go and do it yourself. Water level.
Go and try it anywhere you like.
Use whatever you like as a container and even unbalance it and watch teh water level up.
You know this but you choose to believe it conforms to a globe because that's the narrative set out in mainstream. Simple as that really.

I may just do that, but in the meantime can you direct me to anything where anyone has done this - using water I mean.

 

[Nobby]

You're welcome to go with whatever you believe, as you know. I have no need to prove anything to you. You can easily do this yourself. If you don't want to or reject what's observable then that's your right and I have no issue with it.

It's not belief it's fact.

I can't repeat your experiment if I don't know the parameters.

You are building your argument on what can be seen with the naked eye without measuring it to confirm your observations.

Then you dismiss other people's observations IE astronauts observations. Despite the methods of getting into space being in the public domain and repeatable by anyone with the money (musk, bezzos)

So yes you do need to provide proof to have any credibility

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So it is easily and 100 percent proven but you cant actually prove or offer any proof then. Kind of a flaw in the evidentiary process.

This is one thing I don't need to prove to anyone. People can prove it to themselves if they can free their mind from the global nonsense for a short period of time.
Nobody will ever see anything of any experiment if they go into it with a global indoctrinated mindset, obviously.

You can argue this with me till you're blue in the face but the answer will be the same.
Once you start to see one thing you start to see the nonsense of a lot of it. But that's just myself projecting what I did. It's up to people to decide their own.

 

[Nobby]

An inch drop over just one mile all around you. One simple mile.
There isn't any meniscus on a large body of water, so what are you getting at?

That you haven't described how to do your experiment so I don't know if I need to consider factors such as meniscus at one extreme or tidal motion at the other

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No it isnt, we have been through this once you are wrong and you showed a photo showing how wrong you were. Learn some maths and try again

Maybe you should try again.

I may just do that, but in the meantime can you direct me to anything where anyone has done this - using water I mean.

Do it for you not for anyone else. You can look for whatever you want. You do not need me to hold your hand.

It's not belief it's fact.

I can't repeat your experiment if I don't know the parameters.

You are building your argument on what can be seen with the naked eye without measuring it to confirm your observations.

I'm building my ideas up on my own experiments. If you want to find the alternate then put your mind to work on it. If not, stick to the spinning ball.

Then you dismiss other people's observations IE astronauts observations. Despite the methods of getting into space being in the public domain and repeatable by anyone with the money (musk, bezzos)

There are no methods for getting into the space they sell us.
It's impossible with the machines they say they use and the supposed environment they say they navigate into.

So yes you do need to provide proof to have any credibility

So do you, instead of hollywood films and such as your supposed truth.

That you haven't described how to do your experiment so I don't know if I need to consider factors such as meniscus at one extreme or tidal motion at the other

I'll let you sort them out. If you can't or won't then don't worry about it.

 

[taipeisafc]

Maybe you should try again.

Do it for you not for anyone else. You can look for whatever you want. You do not need me to hold your hand.

I'm building my ideas up on my own experiments. If you want to find the alternate then put your mind to work on it. If not, stick to the spinning ball.

There are no methods for getting into the space they sell us.
It's impossible with the machines they say they use and the supposed environment they say they navigate into.

So do you, instead of hollywood films and such as your supposed truth.

I'll let you sort them out. If you can't or won't then don't worry about it.

So many lies in a single.reply.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I'm building my ideas up on my own experiments. If you want to find the alternate then put your mind to work on it. If not, stick to the spinning ball.

You're building your ideas on misunderstanding, ignorance and misplaced suspicion with an unhealthy dose of stubborn. You have no experiments to show.
You claim to be questioning stuff when really you're just refusing to see what's easily proved and generally accepted while offering nothing as an alternative.
You have repeatedly accused others of blindly following a set narrative, relying on 'appeals to authority' and having no proof to back up their claims yet this is exactly your position. The only difference being that rather than thousands of years of collective thought, experiment and genuine knowledge, your 'authority' is no more than some clown in a youtube video.

 

[payne]

You're building your ideas on misunderstanding, ignorance and misplaced suspicion with an unhealthy dose of stubborn. You have no experiments to show.
You claim to be questioning stuff when really you're just refusing to see what's easily proved and generally accepted while offering nothing as an alternative.
You have repeatedly accused others of blindly following a set narrative, relying on 'appeals to authority' and having no proof to back up their claims yet this is exactly your position. The only difference being that rather than thousands of years of collective thought, experiment and genuine knowledge, your 'authority' is no more than some clown in a youtube video.

he's too naïve to realise this

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

he's too naïve to realise this

He's not going to read it all anyway

 

[taipeisafc]

An inch drop over just one mile all around you. One simple mile.
There isn't any meniscus on a large body of water, so what are you getting at?

So a gradient of 1 or 63360 or so, should be easy with my stanley bullet level. You have literally no idea what you are on about, show me level with that degree of accuracy......go on

 

[nahwee]

Do it for you not for anyone else. You can look for whatever you want. You do not need me to hold your hand.

I’m simply asking for your help.
Can you direct me to any of these experiments?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So a gradient of 1 or 63360 or so, should be easy with my stanley bullet level. You have literally no idea what you are on about, show me level with that degree of accuracy......go on

Any level will do fine.
When people like yourself argue about ships going over a curve then your level argument falls flat in the water. (pun intended).

I’m simply asking for your help.
Can you direct me to any of these experiments?

The experiments are there for you to do, you don't need me.