• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

GIM Funding Drive. next weekend only Feb 4, 5,6

Fri thru Sunday only

WHAT IF the Earth was Actually Flat?

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,847
Reaction score
16,648
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I've never claimed the Earth is flat.
What a load of crap!

All you do is post stuff that you say proves the Earth's surface has no curvature, but when called on it, you try to say, "I never said that!"
.....and you wonder why I call you dishonest?

You posted a pic of Chicago and said, "look! No curvature!"

You posted a pic of oil platforms and said, "look! No curvature!"

You post a word salad and say, "look! No curvature!"

Yet you claim you are not a flat Earther.

So tell us. If the Earth's surface has no curvature, what shape would that make it?

Would it be a square? A donut shape? Maybe a triangle? Or how about trapazoid shaped?

No. It could be none of those.

Saying that surface has no curvature is the same as saying it is flat.

Hence, you are a flat Earther.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,654
Reaction score
2,248
Interesting...as I literally included maths in the post you quoted

So explain it.
No. You are incapable of understanding the language of maths and physics so there is no point me talking to you in that language.

Again, you are like a child staring at a book written in French wanting me to read it to you. Why would I? You cannot understand.

Do the work to answer your own questions - the answers are not especially difficult. Depending on where you are starting from I suspect you could teach yourself enough to understand the answers you seek in a few weeks. But I am not going to waste my time teaching you because I don't believe you want to learn.

Just hurling a bunch of insults and claiming there's nothing to see here...explains nothing. Tell me where you have demonstrable proof that gas pressure can exist in the absence of a container. Demonstrate a rotating pressurized air sphere in direct contact with a vacuum.

I've never claimed the Earth is flat. I merely pointed to biblical verses that indicate the Earth cannot be as ball Earth proponents claim. For that I was told to focus on science...though the conversation about the bible began, when I was told to forget science and focus on the bible. ROFL

Whatever form this debate takes, ball Earth proponents seem very reluctant to actually discuss much of anything.
No. It is you who is reluctant to do the work to understand what you are criticizing. In consequence we do not believe you are genuine.

Why do you take money to hurt other people? Even you must have realized by now how evil your paymasters are. You can just stop taking their money and start working for the good of mankind instead. Why don't you?
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
So no...because insults. Cool.

You're voluntarily taking part in a topical discussion, but you do not wish to discuss the topic, preferring instead to discuss those discussing the topic. ...and you question *MY* motives? ROFL

Do you even own a mirror...bruh?
But I am not going to waste my time teaching you...
Yet you waste a whole bunch of time explaining how I'm allegedly unworthy of your allegedly vast knowledge. You could have saved a bunch of time by simply saying you don't understand how the spinning air covered water pear model can work either.
 

Silvergun

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
1,171
Reaction score
2,026
Location
Commie-fornia
No. You are incapable of understanding the language of maths and physics so there is no point me talking to you in that language.

Again, you are like a child staring at a book written in French wanting me to read it to you. Why would I? You cannot understand.

Do the work to answer your own questions - the answers are not especially difficult. Depending on where you are starting from I suspect you could teach yourself enough to understand the answers you seek in a few weeks. But I am not going to waste my time teaching you because I don't believe you want to learn.


No. It is you who is reluctant to do the work to understand what you are criticizing. In consequence we do not believe you are genuine.

Why do you take money to hurt other people? Even you must have realized by now how evil your paymasters are. You can just stop taking their money and start working for the good of mankind instead. Why don't you?

Are you serious?

You think Solarion is a government shill trying to push flat earth on people to spread evil around the world? Yet you likely believe science dogma theories as fact...

Care to explain how someone that is PUSHING people to research a topic themselves is a shill? Meanwhile, you are telling people to BELIEVE the official story conditioning we receive from Birth should not be questioned and anyone who does is a simpleton as even High School level physics can show. I am not exactly sure what point you're trying to make besides coming off as you being better than everyone else because you have this "physics knowledge" that you cannot expand on because it would be a "waste of your time".

Sounds like you and JoeKing are real experts here. You guys should be honored appropriately and achieve Fauci level expert status.

Also, how many times has Bob, Solarion and myself said this flat earth thing just lead us to question things and we do not know the shape of the earth. That is consistantly ignored. It sounds like Solarion is even thinking it might be a sphere or globe (OMG GLOBE) just much larger than what we are told to believe yet he is still attacked with stupid ass "OMG YOUR GONNA SAIL OFF THE EDGE Yo!" memes and jokes.



You are a waste of everyone's time. All you have to offer is gas lighting attempts. Not interested.

Another person to ignore...
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
I've also spent hours on end researching and arguing against the notion that men have ever visited the moon. ...obvious cover employed by every government shill. lol

To me, the moon landings are *the* litmus test for this topic. Those that adamantly insist humans visited the moon using 1960s technology will never accept that Earth could be anything other than an air wrapped rotating space fruit held together by graviton fairy magic...the workings of which remain a mystery after 500 years.

Even the very definition of the word "gravity" is disputed...as is its propagation speed, operation, and causality. Yet they insist they "know" a couple theories...they pretend are one, are the linchpin of the entire model they claim to be "settled science". Seemingly oblivious of the fact that the term, "settled science", is itself an oxymoron. Headlines such as this one make me laugh.

 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,654
Reaction score
2,248
Are you serious?

You think Solarion is a government shill trying to push flat earth on people to spread evil around the world? Yet you likely believe science dogma theories as fact...
Actually I don't believe that science is the answer to much of anything. However I do believe it is the best way we have to understand some things our physical universe.

Care to explain how someone that is PUSHING people to research a topic themselves is a shill?
But that's not what he's doing. I have no objection to him doing that. What I do object to is his pretending to use the tools of science to prove the earth is flat, and doing so in a way that is completely disingenuous.

If you want to say that science is wrong because the bible, or because God then I'm fine with that. About this specific issue I would disagree, but I would not accuse you of being disingenuous.

If you want to say that we should be suspicious of the globe earth model, and question it because it serves the interest of certain people, I'm fine with that too.

But if you tell me that the earth can't be a spinning globe because sound couldn't travel against the direction of spin, or because "angular momentum", or some other reason which physics handles perfectly well - then I'm not fine with that. That's all.

Meanwhile, you are telling people to BELIEVE the official story conditioning we receive from Birth should not be questioned and anyone who does is a simpleton as even High School level physics can show.
No - that's not what I'm saying at all. I think there are all sorts of things about this world that science cannot and will never tell us. And I'm not telling anyone to believe anything.

All I am doing, and it is one very specific thing, is calling Solarion out when he lies about how the equations of maths and phsyics work, and what behavior they predict or don't predict and claims that they are not internally consistent. And I am calling him out, because in my view he is engaging in deliberate dishonesty.

I am not exactly sure what point you're trying to make besides coming off as you being better than everyone else because you have this "physics knowledge" that you cannot expand on because it would be a "waste of your time".
No. I'm merely pointing out that Solarion is being deliberately disingenuous. He is pretending to use maths and physics to show that the world cannot be a globe. But he is doing so in a way that is either deliberately false and designed to mislead people who do not understand math and physics, or he must know he doesn't know what he's talking about - in which case he shouldn't be making those claims either.

Sounds like you and JoeKing are real experts here. You guys should be honored appropriately and achieve Fauci level expert status.
Not at all. I'm not claiming anything about anything except that Solarion is not being honest.

Also, how many times has Bob, Solarion and myself said this flat earth thing just lead us to question things and we do not know the shape of the earth.
I have no problem with that. You should do your best to try and figure things out. I have no problem with anything you have said, or Bob. I am specifically attacking Solarion because he makes specific claims about physics itself that in my view are >99% chance deliberately dishonest.

That is consistantly ignored. It sounds like Solarion is even thinking it might be a sphere or globe (OMG GLOBE) just much larger than what we are told to believe yet he is still attacked with stupid ass "OMG YOUR GONNA SAIL OFF THE EDGE Yo!" memes and jokes.
I don't object to, or attack, anyone who I think sincerely believes something.

You are a waste of everyone's time. All you have to offer is gas lighting attempts. Not interested.
Perhaps. Or maybe I'm right and it is Solarion who is doing exactly what you accuse me of.

Another person to ignore...
That is of course your choice.
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
Mind telling me exactly what I allegedly lied about?

1638402162202.png


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly where are these lies? We can disagree on a point and discuss them like adults(or not), but calling me a liar using nebulous comments like:
is calling Solarion out when he lies about how the equations of maths and phsyics work
Seems rather slimy. The only maths and science in the post in question were provided by Isaac Newton. If you disagree on my interpretation, then lets hear it...accusing me of lying while refusing to discuss anything is very shitty behavior.
 

Silvergun

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
1,171
Reaction score
2,026
Location
Commie-fornia
iu


“In the primitive simplicity of their minds, they will more easily fall victim to a large lie than a small lie, since they sometimes tell petty lies themselves, but would be ashamed to tell a lie that was too big. They would never consider telling a lie of such magnitude themselves, or knowing that it would require such impudence, they would not consider it possible for it to be told by others. Even after being enlightened and shown that the lie is a lie, they will continue to doubt and waver for a long time and will still believe there must be some truth behind it somewhere, and there must be some other explanation. For this reason, some part of the most bold and brazen lie is sure to stick. This is a fact that all the great liars and liars’ societies (meaning the Jewish press) in this world know only too well and use regularly.” ~ Adolph Hitler

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above quote is 100% on point and represents the vast majority of my own family to a T. As soon as they hear anything that is "outlandish" it is immediately dismissed as "impossible". That is a tactical error of modern society as all your enemies (yes, we have enemies), can operate in the "outlandish" and "far fetched" and well always have power over you because you are asleep to this possibility.

Outlandish or far fetched does NOT equal impossibility.

Its also ingenius as the very victims of this mind fuck will defend the system. This is EXACTLY why the matrix although a Hollywood production is practically a documentary. I think the origination of humanity, the shape of the "earth", what the earth is, why we are here, what we should be doing here, how/why we were created, etc. is all tied to this subject, but until you get passed this "omg its far fetched, thats impossible" mental road block you cannot ever begin the path to "see". We must seek gnosis and shed all beliefs that we are conditioned to believe as "facts". Much much easier said than done of course.
 
Last edited:

Tbonz

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
2,596
Reaction score
3,317
Location
Land of the Free
I will be more than happy to put an end to this argument once and for all.

Tell me at what point is the edge of the earth and I will be more than happy to jump off the edge.

I'm willing to put up a GAE that the world is NOT flat. Give me the point and I will jump off, if I fall of the edge I will guarantee that my 2nd will dutifully pay up on the bet.

If there are not takers on this and can not give me a point where I can jump off an edge ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,847
Reaction score
16,648
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Mind telling me exactly what I allegedly lied about?
For one, you misrepresent the photos you've posted.

Exactly where are these lies?
Every time you post nothing but flat Earth propaganda and then claim that you do not believe in the Earth being flat.


We can disagree on a point and discuss them like adults(or not),
We can, but you don't seem to possess that ability.

If you did, you would tell us why the water blocks the view of Chicago in your pic that you said proves

If you disagree on my interpretation, then lets hear it.
I'm still waiting to hear your interpretation of why the water is blocking our view of Chicago in that pic you said proves the Earth is flat.

accusing me of lying while refusing to discuss anything is very shitty behavior.
You are the one refusing to discuss why we cannot see all of Chicago in that pic you posted.



You could have saved a bunch of time by simply saying you don't understand how the spinning air covered water pear model can work either.
You could have saved a bunch of time by simply saying you don't understand why the pic of Chicago shows it to be underwater, and why some buildings aren't visible.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
In order to examine a problem...any problem objectively, one must attempt to suppress any bias. Doing so with regard to the Earth's shape and functionality requires one to question things we're all taught at a very young age. One of these is gravitational theory...which is an absolute mess of contradictions, pseudoscience, and misinformation. This is a huge problem for ball Earth proponents, because the ball Earth model absolutely depends upon this theory as this is the "force" allegedly holding the spinning ball Earth model together.

Simple questions such as:

What is gravity? At what speed does it propagate? Does gravity push or pull can lead to wildly disparate answers. The reason for this is very simple. Mainstream gravitational theory is actually two theories we're all told to consider one theory...those being Newton's universal "law" of gravitation, and the other is general relativity. The problem is that these two theories contradict one another, and most people simply borrow from both to create their own "belief" of what gravity is.

Newtonian gravitational theory:
1) An attractive force that causes all mass in the universe to attract all other mass in the universe with a force that is the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the inverse of the square between them.
2) Newtonian gravitational theory calls for instantaneous propagation/infinite speed.
3) Newtonian gravity pulls.

General theory of relativity:
1) A warpage or curvature of space/time fabric as a consequence of the presence of mass.
2) In general relativity the propagation speed of gravity is = speed of light(670,616,629 mph)
3) The general theory of relativity calls for a pushing effect caused by mass moving through space/time.

The vast majority of people, when asked, will describe gravity as "an attractive force that functions at the speed of light", not realizing that they've borrowed the propagation speed from the equivalence principle and incorrectly applied it to Newtonian gravitational theory which calls for infinite speed.

These folks are not intentionally lying, they simply do not realize that, now disproven, Newtonian gravitational theory includes within it instantaneous propagation/infinite speed. At the time of it's release(1687) the theory only matched observation when no time element was applied(infinite speed). Only a few years later the theory was disproven when better telescopes showed that Newtonian gravitational theory was inadequate to predict the perihelion precession of the planet Mercury.

While the development of the general theory of relativity in 1915 allowed cosmology to explain away the problems with Newtonian gravitational theory by claiming gravitational lensing, neither theory has been adequate to predict galactic rotational velocity. In fact the expected results have been so far off that some have called into question human understanding of gravitational theory entirely.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,847
Reaction score
16,648
Location
Instant Gratification Land
In order to examine a problem...any problem objectively, one must attempt to suppress any bias.
You do not do that at all. Everything you look at is from the perspective of the Earth having to be flat.


Simple questions such as:

What is gravity? At what speed does it propagate? Does gravity push or pull can lead to wildly disparate answers. The reason for this is very simple. Mainstream gravitational theory is actually two theories we're all told to consider one theory...those being Newton's universal "law" of gravitation, and the other is general relativity. The problem is that these two theories contradict one another, and most people simply borrow from both to create their own "belief" of what gravity is.

Newtonian gravitational theory:
1) An attractive force that causes all mass in the universe to attract all other mass in the universe with a force that is the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the inverse of the square between them.
2) Newtonian gravitational theory calls for instantaneous propagation/infinite speed.
3) Newtonian gravity pulls.

General theory of relativity:
1) A warpage or curvature of space/time fabric as a consequence of the presence of mass.
2) In general relativity the propagation speed of gravity is = speed of light(670,616,629 mph)
3) The general theory of relativity calls for a pushing effect caused by mass moving through space/time.

The vast majority of people, when asked, will describe gravity as "an attractive force that functions at the speed of light", not realizing that they've borrowed the propagation speed from the equivalence principle and incorrectly applied it to Newtonian gravitational theory which calls for infinite speed.

These folks are not intentionally lying, they simply do not realize that, now disproven, Newtonian gravitational theory includes within it instantaneous propagation/infinite speed. At the time of it's release(1687) the theory only matched observation when no time element was applied(infinite speed). Only a few years later the theory was disproven when better telescopes showed that Newtonian gravitational theory was inadequate to predict the perihelion precession of the planet Mercury.

While the development of the general theory of relativity in 1915 allowed cosmology to explain away the problems with Newtonian gravitational theory by claiming gravitational lensing, neither theory has been adequate to predict galactic rotational velocity. In fact the expected results have been so far off that some have called into question human understanding of gravitational theory entirely.
In the context of what shape the Earth is, those are meaningless questions.

Once surface curvature is shown, as it clearly has been, all that crap you just posted goes out the window.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
From the perspective of a human on the exterior surface of a spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference, expected observable curvature would be:

Inches = 7.98(often rounded to 8) * miles²

So for instance, expected curvature over a distance of 5 miles would be 7.98*5² or 199.5 inches(16.625 feet). Due to this squaring function the curvature of Earth, were it a spheroid 7917.5 miles in diameter, would be readily observable...particularly with modern optics. This is my principle reason for concluding Earth cannot be a spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference. There simply is not enough visible curvature...if any. The notion that one must achieve great altitude to observe evidence of Earth's alleged curvature is simply false. The mathematics on this is quite clear and can be checked by anyone at any time.

Doesn't mean "Earth is flat" either, but simply claiming evidence of curvature means Earth is an air covered rotating spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference is false. The spinning ball Earth model is very complex and there are numerous problems, despite what some claim. The requirement that gravity holds it together makes it impossible to model physically and therefore impossible to prove or disprove independently. Measurable curvature, can however, be investigated by anyone.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
39,129
Reaction score
63,055
Location
Qmerica
Wouldn't it be ironic that what most on GIM2 would think is the silliest thread (flat earth durp durp) may be the very seed needed for you to eventually make it out of this prison.

Cheers
Pass the pipe
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Sup +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
7,354
Reaction score
12,199
Pass the pipe?

Why? That would be consciousness enhancing. Not consciousness coming to a grinding halt in induced unaware or feigned ignorance...
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
Spectacular photogrammetry results obtained from aerial IR video.

1638454513707.png



1638454733992.png



1638454927415.png


Perceived horizon line limited by air's opacity level...not curvature of Earth. This is why one can see further on clearer days...not because light suddenly decides to "refract" around a giant sphere much further than expected. The refractive index of air is well known, it can be predicted and compensated for according to distance, temperature, and humidity. Tossing out observable evidence due to nebulous claims of "refraction" without applying maths is merely an excuse to ignore observational evidence in favor of belief structures.

1638455857213.png
 
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
Not a photo of a levitating ship, but rather a false horizon line created by the opacity/refractivity of air. This phenomenon of false horizon lines is well documented. The actual horizon line is well behind this ship. This is why ships that seem to disappear behind curved water can be brought back into focus using optical zoom techniques. The Earth did not suddenly "uncurve", you simply lifted the veil created by the air between you and the subject.

1638459013204.png
 

DHAWK

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
351
Reaction score
451
Location
La
Ok, great pic.
Those videos didn't interest me any though.

What do you think the distance is between the two arrows horizontally?

Untitled-4.jpg
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
Ok, great pic.
Those videos didn't interest me any though.

What do you think the distance is between the two arrows horizontally?

View attachment 235244

I wouldn't care to venture a guess. Though if you intend to use it to draw a conclusion, I suggest you consult the video for the uncropped version posted by the photographer. I had to crop it and reduce resolution to get it to upload here.


Which is why I find it curious that people simply accept that the surface of large bodies of water display convexity consistent with the exterior surface of a spheroid. Meanwhile, people are firing lasers across large lakes and finding zero evidence of curved water.

I suspect, like many other things, the idea that the surface of Earth's lakes and oceans must exhibit convexity for Earth to be a ball is something most never pause to consider.
 

Silvergun

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
1,171
Reaction score
2,026
Location
Commie-fornia
Pass the pipe

I gladly would Newmisty. That might be one of the few good things about California is we have that sticky goey. I'll share (I am a dirty unvaccinated heathen tho). Lets get ripped and talk about consciousness. I'm game.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
Oceans and large bodies of water would have to show convexity agree. Has there ever been studies or measurements made and published these days? There has to be some convexity IMHO
With 71% of Earth allegedly covered by water, the surface of Earth's lakes and oceans would have to display convexity consistent with the exterior surface of a spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference...else it would be evidence that Earth is not a spheroid of that size. In 2018 a series of laser tests conducted at lake Balaton in Hungary and lake Ijssel in the Netherlands at ranges up to 24.94 miles failed to detect any noticeable curvature.

1638504383891.png

1638504585989.png

1638505024415.png


By firing a laser at a pre-determined height(9.58 feet) and then picking up that laser 24.94 miles distant at the same height one can conclude(after allowing for refraction) that the expected hidden height(curved water) was not present to block the beam. In the case of the 24.94 mile test the results differed from the WSG84 geoid model of Earth by 293.01 feet...which represents a complete lack of observable convexity.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
39,129
Reaction score
63,055
Location
Qmerica
Oceans and large bodies of water would have to show convexity agree. Has there ever been studies or measurements made and published these days? There has to be some convexity IMHO
Here's a related post. One of several posts that were conveniently skipped over by the guy who asked for it.

If he does decide to respond to it, it'll be chaff & re-direct.


Water Meniscus​

A meniscus is a curve in the surface of a molecular substance (water, of course) when it touches another material. With water, you can think of it as when water sticks to the inside of a glass.

What is a meniscus?​

A meniscus is a curve in the surface of a molecular substance (water, of course) when it touches another material. With water, you can think of it as when water sticks to the inside of a glass.

Why a meniscus occurs​

Adhesion is responsible for a meniscus and this has to do in part with water's fairly high surface tension. Water molecules are attracted to the molecules in the wall of the glass beaker. And since water molecules like to stick together, when the molecules touching the glass cling to it, other water molecules cling to the molecules touching the glass, forming the meniscus. They'll travel up the glass as far as water's cohesive forces will allow them, until gravity prevents them from going further. Cohesion is an intermolecular attraction between like molecules (other water molecules in this case).

Glass cylinder with water in it, showing the meniscus along the glass walls

Sad tale of a meniscus misread​

Few people take the time to consider the importance of water menisci in their lives. But, imagine this chilling scenario:
In your high-school chemistry final exam you mistakenly read a meniscus as 21.9 milliliters (ml) instead of the correct 21.7 ml (in this picture), and thus you get an 89 on the test instead of a 90. Your GPA falls from 4.00 to 3.99 and you don't get into that engineering college program you wanted. Consequently, you don't get that prestigious engineering job, where, 20 years later, you would have invented a new water-based chemical to allow rubber to grip better. Sadly, 10 years later, a mother and her adorable 4-year old daughter are leaving the ice cream store and the little girl, whose shoes don't have your un-invented coating, slips on a napkin and drops her ice cream cone. She cries at her loss ... because you misread the meniscus in the 12th grade.
The moral of this fictional tale is that it is important to read the measurement correctly, and yes, in the picture above, the true volume in the graduated cylinder is at the bottom of the water level—21.7 milliliters, not 21.9.

Water has an upward meniscus, mercury has a downward meniscus.
As you can see here, a water meniscus is concave and a mercury meniscus is convex.

"Upside down" meniscus​

As this picture shows, a meniscus can go up or down. It all depends on if the molecules of the liquid are more attracted to the outside material or to themselves. A concave meniscus, which is what you normally will see, occurs when the molecules of the liquid are attracted to those of the container. This occurs with water and a glass tube. A convex meniscus occurs when the molecules have a stronger attraction to each other than to the container, as with mercury and glass. A flat meniscus occurs with water in some types of plastic tubes; tubes made out of material that water does not stick to. In any case, you get the true volume of the liquid by reading the center of the liquid in the tube, which will the lowest vertical point of the liquid.




:
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
Here's a related post. One of several posts that were conveniently skipped over by the guy who asked for it.

If he does decide to respond to it, it'll be chaff & re-direct.
Weird. Sorry you missed it.

1638545258644.png



1638545432780.png


To say nothing of the fact that the meniscus effect(caused by surface tension) often manifests as concavity...not convexity. Is it time for the ball vs concave Earth debate? ...because molecular cohesion? lol

1638545814474.png


This is a very risky line of reasoning for ballers due simply to the fact that it brings up discussions of the four fundamental forces of nature. ...one of which is simply ignored by mainstream quantum physics. GRABBITY. Ya know, the "force"(not a force) that ballers believe holds their entire model together?

1638546126775.png


Again, if ballers wish to have a conversation about how their gravity god is actually magnetic in nature and not due to unicorn farts, then let's do that, but meniscus effect is evidence of surface tension, which is evidence of nuclear force between molecules...not gravity fairy magic. To my knowledge nobody associates a water bug's ability to skip across water with the "strength" of gravity...quite the opposite in fact...water bugs are apparently anti-gravitational insects.

1638546626244.png
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
15,504
Reaction score
21,608
I think that based on the presented evidence that this "flat Earth Society" is a dog whistle for those attracted to lady-boi's

preverts!
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
The flat earth society is controlled opposition. People that actually believe Earth to be flat have nothing whatsoever to do with them. Flat Earth society claims "gravity" is evidence that Earth is continuously accelerating "up". It's a group made up simply to trick people into ridiculing those that have genuine issues with the notion that Earth is an air covered spinning water ball 7917 miles in diameter.

I've no idea if they(flat earth society) is intended to attract "lady-boi preverts", but I do know that people that genuinely believe Earth is flat do not accept flat earth society theories.

1638620590935.png
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014

DHAWK

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
351
Reaction score
451
Location
La
Ok, let me get this straight..
Round earthers believe that gravity is responsible for holding everything together.
Flat earthers dispute gravity theory, therefore the earth can't be round.
It seems that gravity could exist in either scenario.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
39,129
Reaction score
63,055
Location
Qmerica

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
Ok, let me get this straight..
Round earthers believe that gravity is responsible for holding everything together.
Flat earthers dispute gravity theory, therefore the earth can't be round.
It seems that gravity could exist in either scenario.
Possibly, though even attempting to define what the word "gravity" even means, let alone its functionality and causality is a fruitless task...as nobody knows. By the most popular, though provably wrong theory, gravity is a "force" spontaneously causing all mass to attract all other mass from center to center which works far better in ball Earth theory than flat Earth theory.

This is touched upon in the video in the OP, which muses about gravity on a flat Earth...though it makes arguments involving a whole mess of assumption and zero fact. Which is kind of what one gets with mainstream gravitational theory...a mess of assumptions/conjecture and very little observable fact.

Again, gravitational theory would make a whole bunch more sense on both models were it a product of magnetism(electricity), which flat Earth proponents are much more open to than are ball Earth proponents in general.

Hey sol, thats a sweet octopus round! Got any more info?

Thanks! That's actually a photo I stole from power coin and edited...but I do have one single Octopus underwater world 3oz-er. When I saw it, I just HAD to have one...though it's embarrassingly expensive for 3oz of silver. I got it from here if you're interested. Though it took a couple months from payment, power coin was very communicative and straightforward to deal with. I believe they were still being produced when I bought one, so perhaps they're quicker to ship now.


1638626875471.jpeg
 

Uglytruth

Super Moderator
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
Survivor
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
19,105
Reaction score
45,958
1638727608169.png
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
Even assuming the moon is a spheroid and the shape of Earth is actually flat according to flat Earth theory(it's not)...that is not how a shadow from a flat or cylindrical object would appear when cast upon a spheroid...even one not prone to specularity. Further, many flat Earth theorists contend that lunar eclipses are not caused by Earth's shadow at all. The weakness of most ball Earth proponent arguments against flat Earth proponent arguments, is that the ball Earthers "know" they're correct and therefore don't bother to understand the claims of those supporting the alternative viewpoint. Meanwhile flat Earth proponents have often spent many hours thinking about how the ball Earth model works.

I realize most of these memes are intended primarily to ridicule flat Earth theorists...and by extension spiritual/historical belief structures, but simply testing the shadow cast by a cylinder or flat object upon a spheroid would show this particular meme to be incorrect.
 

BarnacleBob

Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor
Founding Member
GIM Hall Of Fame
Survivor
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
44,720
So far I havent seen any one in these threads supporting the notion that the Earth is flat... what I have read is serious questioning of the current narrative that the earth is a 1037 mph spinning pear shaped blue marble traveling at 67,000 mph orbiting the sun. Conventional scientism nonsense has the sun and the solar system moving at 200 kilometers per second, or at an average speed of 448,000 mph thru the uni-verse. Why would a thinking person accept this THEORY as fact? The questioning of various teachings such as gravity, molten iron core, enclosed atmospheric system, etc.... are all viable questions to a thinking person!

Yet, any questioning of this so called "conventional" programming results in asnine nonsense such as "flat earth eclipse" that really hasnt a darn thing to do with the discussion... except to shed light upon intellectual capacity of the person performing such a posting...
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
Don't forget the galaxy is also allegedly hurtling through the cosmos at roughly 1,300,000 mph...allegedly toward a doom meeting with Andromeda galaxy...which mysteriously keeps shrinking according to mainstream cosmology.

It's odd that legitimate questions about the numerous theory tales used to support the helios-centric model are so oft met with attacks on opposing theories or those that ask questions, rather than legitimate answers to questions which should be relatively simple. ...if the theory tales made much sense.
 

BarnacleBob

Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor
Founding Member
GIM Hall Of Fame
Survivor
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
44,720
Don't forget the galaxy is also allegedly hurtling through the cosmos at roughly 1,300,000 mph...allegedly toward a doom meeting with Andromeda galaxy...which mysteriously keeps shrinking according to mainstream cosmology.

It's odd that legitimate questions about the numerous theory tales used to support the helios-centric model are so oft met with attacks on opposing theories or those that ask questions, rather than legitimate answers to questions which should be relatively simple. ...if the theory tales made much sense.
And the night sky is just the same as it was recorded 5000 years ago.... all the while we are zooming across the uni-verse at 1.3 mm mph, spinning at 1037 mph, orbiting the sun @ 67000 mph while the sun orbits the solar system @ 448,000 mph... thats quite a theory or just plain bad mathematics! So just what are these majic forces that are propelling our solar system at 1.3 mm mph & powering the 67000 mph orbit around the sun & pushing the solar system @ 448000 mph, and lastly, whats spinning the earth at 1037 mph.... ???

Gotta luv it, they just keep pushing these fraudulent & dishonest nonsensical images of earth... even after they have admitted they are CGI...
RXrecJM8AmhEmseetbXebN-720-80.jpg
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
10,448
Reaction score
19,014
...the big(micro) bang(silent) done it. Then gravity allegedly caused stuff to spontaneously "accrete" while still allegedly spinning and hurtling through alleged space/time...because reasons. The gravity then ignored all of the times it was confronted with more than two objects...because apparently gravity is easily confused.

Now, don't go trying to prove any of that, because not only is there no way to verify any of it, but there are numerous laws of physics that say it's impossible. ...but apparently science stopped being part of "science" at some point to give way to a series of theory tales to be promoted as though they're "facts".
 

BarnacleBob

Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor
Founding Member
GIM Hall Of Fame
Survivor
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
19,596
Reaction score
44,720
...the big(micro) bang(silent) done it. Then gravity allegedly caused stuff to spontaneously "accrete" while still allegedly spinning and hurtling through alleged space/time...because reasons. The gravity then ignored all of the times it was confronted with more than two objects...because apparently gravity is easily confused.

Now, don't go trying to prove any of that, because not only is there no way to verify any of it, but there are numerous laws of physics that say it's impossible. ...but apparently science stopped being part of "science" at some point to give way to a series of theory tales to be promoted as though they're "facts".

Brian Cox debunks Big Bang theory after 'strongly suspecting' universe 'existed before'

 

the_shootist

Mother Lode Found
Sr Midas Sup +++
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
74,008
Reaction score
158,600
An observation and a thought...

Am I the only one here who doesn't give a rat's behind if the earth is shaped like Nancy Pelosi's dildo? I can't believe the venom in this thread by folks that otherwise are more measured in their responses on ay other topic. Flat Earth is right up there with politics and religion for what topics we all should run away from