Is the earth flat?

[Alpha]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

[Fatboxingfan]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

Of what?

[Alpha]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

Of what?

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

[Fatboxingfan]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

Of what?

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

Of what?

[Andre]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

There is a pro flat Earth meme that shows a game show host asking "Show me Curved Water".

My answer: A drip, falling to Earth; due to gravity.

[Fatboxingfan]

wrong.

still waiting on your practical demonstration.

there is a pro flat earth meme that shows a game show host asking "show me curved water".

My answer: A drip, falling to earth; due to gravity.

this.

✌️

[Fatboxingfan]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

There is a pro flat Earth meme that shows a game show host asking "Show me Curved Water".

My answer: A drip, falling to Earth; due to gravity.

Mr. Andre, I have to doubling-down on agree to your point about that raindrop. "Falling to Earth" YES! that point is the proof and those drop never go up! Always down. Gravity right there!

[Alpha]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

There is a pro flat Earth meme that shows a game show host asking "Show me Curved Water".

My answer: A drip, falling to Earth; due to gravity.

That is a False equivalence. We understand adhesion, cohesion, meniscus and surface tension. We can test it and demonstrate it. I am talking about the surface of a standing body of water. Are you trying to pass of a rain drop as some kind of representation of the globe model?

[Fatboxingfan]

Do you not believe that a raindrop that is curved or concave because of surface tension?

[Alpha]

Do you not believe that a raindrop that is curved or concave because of surface tension?

That is a False equivalence. We understand adhesion, cohesion, meniscus and surface tension. We can test it and demonstrate it. I am talking about the surface of a standing body of water. Are you trying to pass of a rain drop as some kind of representation of the globe model?

[Beanz]

Alpha you do not even understand what you are saying, but I will indulge you. Your first paragraph -

"By affirmative claim, I am referring to the official narrative. It is taught to us and we are told we live on a spinning, pressurized system in a vacuum. So that is the claim that I am questioning. The burden of proof lies with those making that claim."

The burden of proof does not lie with a claim widely believed and backed with documentation, evidence, experiments etc for more than a thousand years. It is not even a claim anymore, it is a long established and verified fact. You are asking that reality be turned on its head in order to indulge your teenage whimsy.

You can feel the effects of living in a pressurised system simply by diving deep underwater, climbing a mountain or flying in a plane. Your ears popping will let you know.

That such pressure can exist on a huge planet in the near vacuum of space is not remarkable. It only becomes troublesome when you impose your own willful stupidity. You are having to reject Gravity without providing a replacement because of your flat earth trance.

You eschew nuance and complexity in order to make up for your own lack of a theories own gaping holes. Helium is lighter than air and so inside a balloon with a slimmer bottom than top it will due to this pressure float upwards. It doesn't disprove the globe model it proves it. Just like birds using uplift to fly proves it.

The earth spinning again doesn't present conceptual problems until you present scenarios which do not match with lived experience. You are imposing a model that does not fit. We have all traveled at speed on trains and plains and cars and can move about inside the vehicle travelling at speed without a problem.

[Alpha]

Alpha you do not even understand what you are saying, but I will indulge you. Your first paragraph -

"By affirmative claim, I am referring to the official narrative. It is taught to us and we are told we live on a spinning, pressurized system in a vacuum. So that is the claim that I am questioning. The burden of proof lies with those making that claim."

The burden of proof does not lie with a claim widely believed and backed with documentation, evidence, experiments etc for more than a thousand years. It is not even a claim anymore, it is a long established and verified fact. You are asking that reality be turned on its head in order to indulge your teenage whimsy.

You can feel the effects of living in a pressurised system simply by diving deep underwater, climbing a mountain or flying in a plane. Your ears popping will let you know.

That such pressure can exist on a huge planet in the near vacuum of space is not remarkable. It only becomes troublesome when you impose your own willful stupidity. You are having to reject Gravity without providing a replacement because of your flat earth trance.

You eschew nuance and complexity in order to make up for your own lack of a theories own gaping holes. Helium is lighter than air and so inside a balloon with a slimmer bottom than top it will due to this pressure float upwards. It doesn't disprove the globe model it proves it. Just like birds using uplift to fly proves it.

The earth spinning again doesn't present conceptual problems until you present scenarios which do not match with lived experience. You are imposing a model that does not fit. We have all traveled at speed on trains and plains and cars and can move about inside the vehicle travelling at speed without a problem.

Beanz you've already been spanked, you are easy. You have already admitted that you are unable to practically demonstrate your belief that standing bodies of water can naturally conform to the exterior of a shape. Test the physics of water for yourself, I guarantee a body of water will always provide the same results.

You are just a zealot. I'll be waiting for you to bring something practical to the table, but we both know you can't.

I'm not sure why you are bothering to continue, as I've said plenty of times, I'm not trying to convince anyone, you wanted to start the thread, I'm just asking questions of the claims taught to me, on my own journey. I am happy to leave you to your belief. But I find it hilarious that you are trying to get me back into your cult belief.

[Andre]

Wrong.

Still waiting on your practical demonstration.

There is a pro flat Earth meme that shows a game show host asking "Show me Curved Water".

My answer: A drip, falling to Earth; due to gravity.

That is a False equivalence. We understand adhesion, cohesion, meniscus and surface tension. We can test it and demonstrate it. I am talking about the surface of a standing body of water. Are you trying to pass of a rain drop as some kind of representation of the globe model?

How about a bubble that is water floating through through the atmosphere the same as a drip. Why cant that represent a model in miniature? Most planets were apparently gasses and water floating through the void.Planets are not a standing body of liquid either so why force the issue as if they are all plates up and down and around us?

[Andre]

Which brings me to another question if you dont mind: Do flat earth believers also believe that all the other planets are flat and the sun too as well as the moon or just ours? BTW, You are correct I havent read through all the posts here.

[Fatboxingfan]

Andre has ~nailed~ it, and nailed it good.