Is the earth flat?

[walrus]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...ion-meditation

I know someone who tried it for addiction. I’ve only heard or read about it. In your experience it wasn’t pleasant I take?

[Alpha]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...ion-meditation

I know someone who tried it for addiction. I’ve only heard or read about it. In your experience it wasn’t pleasant I take?

Yes and no, it can start out difficult but after the third time I felt like my 'vibration' (hard to explain) had changed for the better.

[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.

[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?

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?

I noticed you didn’t respond to attempt to establish first principles, not sure if that was on purpose or you missed it, so I’ll post it again:

Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

Another one would be:

Do you accept images ‘ALONE’ as proof of anything?

I’m not sure if your taking the piss about why it can’t represent a model miniature or not. But I’d start with where is the solid core, all the other metals, minerals, soil etc?

When have I ever said, “they are all plates up and down around us”? Bit of a strawman there mate. Also, we are talking about the physics of tangible substances here on earth.

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.

Can you define the term flat earther? As I have said many times, the term has been hijacked to evoke propaganda in your mind. I’m a realist, questions the claims that were taught to me.

I can only speak for and represent myself, through my own experiences. I have never been to these planets or the moon, to be able to move around them in 3D, so I could test them and interact with them. So, I can only tell you what I have seen through telescopes and high zoom cameras. I can tell you that what I see, is far different from what NASA and Co. are showing me. But again, looking at the sky gives me nothing, quantifiable, or measurable for the ground beneath my feet.

It's like you saying an eclipse is proof of curvature. I'm asking where can I measure that curvature? Because it isn't there. You know what the circumference of earth is, you can easily work out how much it should be curving per mile.

[Fatboxingfan]

So you don't trust your eyes, so why start with a presumptuous premise as a priori?

[Alpha]

So you don't trust your eyes, so why start with a presumptuous premise as a priori?

Our senses can be fooled. Like the visual phenomena example I used of railway tracks appearing to converge, when the reality is that thtey remain parallel.

If you want a discussion, lets try to agree on some first principles.

Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

Do you accept images ‘ALONE’ as proof of anything?

If we don't agree, then there is no point in us continuing to discuss the topic.

[Beanz]

Alpha you are confusing philosophical concepts with scientific criteria. You are basically arguing against yourself in insisting on two principles that cancel each other out.

You are not displaying a healthy skepticism but rather a retreat into denialism. You are in one breath saying you cannot trust your eyes and at the same time demanding that the illusion of level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence despite it requiring that you deny overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

You are also mocking Andre's bubbles for not having metals and a core when you have for the entire thread denied that is necessary and impossible to model when dealing with your own curved water around a sphere mantra.

[Alpha]

Alpha you are confusing philosophical concepts with scientific criteria. You are basically arguing against yourself in insisting on two principles that cancel each other out.

You are not displaying a healthy skepticism but rather a retreat into denialism. You are in one breath saying you cannot trust your eyes and at the same time demanding that the illusion of level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence despite it requiring that you deny overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

You are also mocking Andre's bubbles for not having metals and a core when you have for the entire thread denied that is necessary and impossible to model when dealing with your own curved water around a sphere mantra.

The physics of water are not an illusion. They are testable and demonstrable. Show me where I have ever said "level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence".

Are you saying that when you observe railway tracks converging, that they are in reality?

I'm not mocking Andre's bubbles, but they in no way represent in the slightest the globe model.

You continue to misrepresent me.

[Beanz]

Alpha you are confusing philosophical concepts with scientific criteria. You are basically arguing against yourself in insisting on two principles that cancel each other out.

You are not displaying a healthy skepticism but rather a retreat into denialism. You are in one breath saying you cannot trust your eyes and at the same time demanding that the illusion of level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence despite it requiring that you deny overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

You are also mocking Andre's bubbles for not having metals and a core when you have for the entire thread denied that is necessary and impossible to model when dealing with your own curved water around a sphere mantra.

The physics of water are not an illusion. They are testable and demonstrable. Show me where I have ever said "level water on the horizon be accepted as evidence".

Are you saying that when you observe railway tracks converging, that they are in reality?

I'm not mocking Andre's bubbles, but they in no way represent in the slightest the globe model.

You continue to misrepresent me.

Bullshit. You continue to refuse to engage. I am using YOUR criteria and still your intellectual dishonesty is so extreme it is off the scale. Go back and address the points raised and stop evading everything. Your 'no such thing as experts' view of the world is dangerously catching on. You are pissing on the chips of other people because you want your own vinegar of opinion and belief to replace facts and real world experience. Nobody is misrepresenting you at all. We have all addressed your assertions and dreamy hallucinations and you don't have the decency to engage with anyone when it is demonstrated they are built on nonsense.

You are a believer in something that makes you feel special, don't kid yourself that it has anything to do with science or reality.

[Memphis]

Alpha what do you make of this stuff?

https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-pro...artrain.t8939/

The water argument is a consistent one throughout the thread and one that if observed by any one of us day to day you'd have to conclude that it conforms to it's shape and is level. You really need to supersize the observation.

A flat Earth would be good. Especially if its proof had a Truman Show type ending. That would be brilliant.

Didn't have a look but Mick West is a shill and has been debunked over and over, as has Soundly. You will find anyone trying to debunk 'flat earth' will only ever use visual phenomena or formal science. They will never use natural science, or practical, physical demonstrations using the tangible substances of the earth. What I mean by that is, when we look down a set of railway tracks disapearing in the distance, they appear to converge, although we know in reality they are parallel. That is a visual phenomena. Physical phenomena is testing the substances, water, gases etc.

Cool Memphis, it sounds like you do agree with one of my first principles, but I'll pop it here, you can confirm if you want.

Would you agree that it's an objective physical truth that a body of water will always take the shape of its container and the surface will always be level?

So at what scale do you believe the physics of water change? Because we have been told the circumference of the earth, and using geometry we can work out how much it is curving per mile. I can demonstrate the physics of water, we have used water in construction for centuries.

The Truman Show had lots of truths in it, but also pushed the propaganda of a dome.

I guess the answer to your question is two fold and both with the caveat that is 'as far as I can see'. I've never conducted any scientific experiments but at a very basic say what you see level, water does conform to it's container and is 'level'. Would that be the same at my local fifty meter pool or reservoir? Don't know. I could observe in both of those relatively small containers that the water is conforming to it's boundaries. level? I couldn't say, but it would look that way. I apply the same logic to putting up a shelf. Does it look level? Then that's good enough for me.

I would imagine every flat/globe earther has been debunked and debunked again. If they weren't, we wouldn't have this thread. What is it about what I posted that you don't like? Not the people presenting it, but the methods or practices they use?

I don't really understand the train track idea. Flat, globe, the result would be the same.

[Fatboxingfan]

Alpha cannot lick the dust off those bottoms of Beanz shoes. Beanz soccintly dismantle your points like a laser beam, one by the one, zap! Zap! Zap! I love him and he's style when he does like that's! When he gets going he is unstoppable, he fires up those discourse engines on his all 8 cylinders and nobody can touch him!

[walrus]

Alpha cannot lick the dust off those bottoms of Beanz shoes. Beanz soccintly dismantle your points like a laser beam, one by the one, zap! Zap! Zap! I love him and he's style when he does like that's! When he gets going he is unstoppable, he fires up those discourse engines on his all 8 cylinders and nobody can touch him!

I like to touch beaner

#touchbeanz

[walrus]

I wish alpha could present a couple things. He has his argument I understand. However when asked to present any theory of what the earth may look like if not round, at least an iota instead of saying those who ask him about the edge are using scarecrow arguments seems short sighted. In addition why? For what reason would so many countries and private companies involved in space travel and satellite tech and communication cover this up. How would it not leak out? It would be one of the greatest cover ups in, well in anything ever. It’s just a question.