• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

Nukehasslefan said:
Short distances?
I've never went over 50 miles so don't bother using that argument.
And you can't help jumping in that bath, can you. ;)


Your figure is wrong because the bath water is level, so you have no figures to use.
You're going on the assumption that water curves at rest. It does not.
You really need to try and get out of the 50 mile, 1666 feet drop of your globe and the saying that buildings can clearly be seen in Chicago from lake Michigan as we're told by the news channels. Unless they're telling lies on this and you really can't see it.

What do you think?

The maths is absolutely not needed for a bath. You are welcome to argue that bath water curves if you want to and are welcome to give minute figures if you want to.

However, we are dealing with miles of water and the drop which you clearly understand would be the case on a globe of the size that's made out.
Trying to argue it goes skewed over long distances of over 100 miles is neither here nor there when we are dealing with 50 miles.
Click to expand...
I think running two arguments at the same time is going to get difficult, so I will promise to come back to this Chicago thing in a bit but lets keep looking at this bath of yours, as that is your major proof against a globe, yet is somehow acceptable on your curved earth because you say your curve is minor.

But I don't see why you refuse to calculate what the curve of the globe of accepted size would be over the length of a bath. Lets go with your rule, it is within +-1% accuracy, so I'm happy to go with that.

The globe model is that a surface of water will conform to the shape of the earth, showing it's curve. You say that 1/1000 of a millimetre is not correct. What would you expect it to be? More than 5cm or less than 5cm?
 

monkeytassle said:
Does you cell spin?
Click to expand...
Nope but the energy within does.
DaveH said:
I think running two arguments at the same time is going to get difficult, so I will promise to come back to this Chicago thing in a bit but lets keep looking at this bath of yours, as that is your major proof against a globe, yet is somehow acceptable on your curved earth because you say your curve is minor.

But I don't see why you refuse to calculate what the curve of the globe of accepted size would be over the length of a bath. Lets go with your rule, it is within +-1% accuracy, so I'm happy to go with that.

The globe model is that a surface of water will conform to the shape of the earth, showing it's curve. You say that 1/1000 of a millimetre is not correct. What would you expect it to be? More than 5cm or less than 5cm?
Click to expand...
A bath isn't my major proof at all but you carry on going with that if that's all you can muster for your argument.
 
Last edited:
fyl2u said:
The point he's making is that your experiment is flawed if you're trying to use a bath to prove that water is flat, because your method of measuring that flatness is not accurate enough to be able to measure whether it is truly flat as stated by your own narrative or actually curved by the amount it would be if our narrative were correct about it being curved.

Our narrative says that "IF the world were an oblate spheroid of the size we think it is, then over the length of a bath we should see a curve of 0.000176mm."

Your own narrative says that "IF the world were a cell, then over the length of a bath we should not see a curve at all, no matter how small."

Therefore if you or I or anyone else wanted to find out honestly whether water in a bath conformed to your narrative or ours, then we would need a measuring device capable of detecting whether or not there was actually a curve of 0.000176mm.

If a curve of 0.000176mm was observed, then it would be evidence that water does indeed curve.

If no curve of even that small amount was observed, then it would be evidence that water does NOT curve.

There's no point getting a bubble-based spirit level, holding it over the bath and saying "yes that's straight" because literally nobody is trying to suggest that such a device would be capable of detecting a curve of 0.000176mm. To prove that the water is flat and that there is no curve of 0.000176mm you would need a much more accurate measuring device.

Until you use a device capable of detecting whether or not there is a curve of 0.000176mm, you're lying to yourself and to everyone else about having done an experiment that proves bathwater is flat, not curved.
Click to expand...
Nukehasslefan said:
It is an answer and I know many people that's proven water to be level and flat.
Click to expand...

Why are you so reluctant to share this information with us?
 
monkeytassle said:
And it just so happens to be a sphere. And spins. And that's the most basic of flaws in the argument without addressing the obvious
Click to expand...
No. It's not a sphere. It's a carbon arc that will show up what is under it, which is what you'll see of the moon after seeing what the carbon arc shows up first, which is what you see as the sun and every other point of light coming from within projected onto the dome.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
No. It's not a sphere. It's a carbon arc that will show up what is under it, which is what you'll see of the moon after seeing what the carbon arc shows up first, which is what you see as the sun and every other point of light coming from within projected onto the dome.
Click to expand...
Have you been mainlining petrol?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top