iWitness' "Proofs" of Flat Earth

The "proofs" iWitness gives for his Flat Earth are listed below.  I could not comment in his thread. That would have been against the rules! So what comments do people have?
If iWitness can list them as 14 of more "proofs" in one block, surely I can list them in one post.

I don't argue with his right to hold these, but when he accuses others as being "all children of NWO Satanists" he has gone too far!

Clearly, I cannot give detailed rebuttals here, but where other posts have refuted his claims I will try to list those.

• The most obvious proof is that the Horizon is Flat, Eye-level and does not drop when altitude is gained.
  There is a real dip to the sea horizon at any height above sea-level. All navigators using "celestial navigation" have to allow for it.
  You might want to look at:
  
  
  Flat Earth Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level disproved.
  
  
• There are many other proofs that add to my belief like water being perfectly level,
  It might be your belief, but it is not necessarily true, see Is it true that water "always seek its own level" and if so is it always "Flat"?
  
  
• star constellations not changing in 5000 years,
  That is completely untrue. Around 3,000 BC the faint star Thuban in the constellation Draco was the North Star, see
  Quote from: Wikipedia

  Pole_star, Historical
  The North Star has historically been used for navigation since Late Antiquity, both to find the direction of north and to determine latitude.
  
  The path of the north celestial pole amongst the stars due to the effect of precession, with dates shown
  Due to the precession of the equinoxes (as well as the stars' proper motions), the role of North Star passes from one star to another.
  In 3000 BCE, the faint star Thuban in the constellation Draco was the North Star. At magnitude 3.67 (fourth magnitude) it is only one-fifth as bright as Polaris, and today it is invisible in light-polluted urban skies.
  During the 1st millennium BCE, β Ursae Minoris was the bright star closest to the celestial pole, but it was never close enough to be taken as marking the pole, and the Greek navigator Pytheas in ca. 320 BCE described the celestial pole as devoid of stars.

  from Wikipedia, Pole_star
  
  
• sun and moon being the same exact size,
  No, they are not. The sun's angular size varies from about 0.52° to 0.54° and the moon's from about 0.49° to 0.55°, quite a significant variation.
  
  The Moon at Perigee and Apogee
  
  From Inconstant Moon.
  And even if they were the same apparent size, it would prove what? That the sun and moon are the same apparent size!
  
  
• reflection of Sunlight on water does not converge but widens as it reaches the observer (light converges on a spherical surface),
  This does not prove anything. The reflection "but widens as it reaches the observer" simply because it is everywhere almost the same width, looks to widen near the observer for the obvious reason, perspective.
  
  
• Rainbows are curved which is proof the Firmament is a Mirror-like dome (rainbows need two polarized lenses),
  No, rainbows are curved simple because they are caused by the refraction of light through tiny drops of water, no mystery!
  Rainbows definitely do not "need two polarized lenses"! Polarising of light does not come into it! Read a bit more in Wikipedia, Rainbows
  
  
• Radio waves can travel much further than they are supposed to on a spherical earth,
  No, they travel as expected when you allow the "ionosphere" to do its "work"!
  
  
• Ionospheric Propagation is bouncing radio waves off the Crystal Firmament NOT the ionosphere,
  You have no evidence at all for there even being a dome, let alone this being the cause of "Ionospheric Propagation".
  
  
• Chicago skyline can be seen across Lake Michigan about 60 miles away,
  Yes, but only when there is a "superior mirage", why else do you think it was so newsworthy? Someone else can add more, there are plenty of photos of Chicago half-hidden.
  
  
• the orientation of the Pyramids is always the same no matter what angle the picture is taken,
  I imagine they are! Why would the orient differently? What on earth do you mean, that they  turn themselves to face the camera  ?
  
  
• buildings and structures are never seen "tilting away" due to the curve the roofs are always perfectly flat,
  Why would they? The earth curves only about 1° for each 69 miles! Are you going to see the minute curve in the size of a building or the size of the largest roof?
  
  
• The fakery from NASA was already evident so it made sense that they faked the Moon Landing to hide the fact the earth is flat.
  Your opinion, not proof!
  
  
• all photos of earth from space are admitted Composites (fakes)
  No, they are definitely not admitted Composites, some are composites, but that does not prove that they are fakes! and I claim this is not faked!
  
  Himawari Geostationary Meteorological satellite 201607040000
  There are thousands of full hemisphere photos of earth from space!
  
  
• plus the Picture of Earth from the Moon on Apollo 17 has been proven photoshop.....
  No, you falsely claimed it was "Photoshopped" and were proved wrong! It might have been resaved to a lower resolution. That is no surprise as the uncompressed original was a file of about 170 MB!
  

My refutations have been necessarily brief, but there's plenty more if you want it!

Most of these are not proof of a flat earth, but evidence that you do not understand anything about the globe, or have any idea of perspective!

Maybe you should spend your time explaining all the "unexplainables" in the Flat Earth model.
The globe has been around for a couple of thousand years before there could be any "NWO Satanists", so think again

Sorry for the length of this, but when we are presented with a compact list of demonstrably wrong "proofs" what else can I do?

Stellar. You did great.

Now that you made this I think we need a mega thread with a bunch of common flat earth claims debunked. I'd be glad if you helped me with it and brought some others as well.

That's a terrific rebuttal, but doomed to failure as you will never convince a fool of anything and FEers are the very definition of fools. After all, his Apollo 17 photoshop claim was comprehensively demolished in another thread and yet he just states it again. Ive read as much as I could stomach of the various '100 proofs of a flat earth' and their ilk and they are just more of the same. Total nonsense, incredible lies and ignorant opinion.

I didn't realise iWitness was so early in his research

these are old 'proofs' that most flat earthers don't even use anymore

I didn't realise iWitness was so early in his research

these are old 'proofs' that most flat earthers don't even use anymore

What are the 'new proofs'? I must have missed them. I thought I'd heard all them before now.

1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13..

you don't hear these arguments much anymore, that's my point

Terrible Rebuttal I give it 2/10 stars.

1. Everyone knows the horizon is flat and eye level.

2. Water is Flat and Level hence "Levels" are made using water.

3. Can you prove that? There are star charts from China that are 3000+ years old that match perfectly with modern star charts. So we have absolutely no proof that Thuban was the North star, just a theory.

4. NASA seems to disagree with you, "The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size."
Source: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html

5. Tell me how the sun's reflection can even reach the feet of the observer when the "curve" of the earth should be blocking the sun's rays from reaching that far?



It is scientific fact that light converges to a point on a sphere:


6. If raindrops are individually creating prisms of light then how come rainbows don't consist of millions of tiny rainbows? Instead, it is one large rainbow with the colors going through multiple raindrops.



Also, rainbows that are created inside using a mirror are straight. Rainbows outside are curved, why? Where is the curved polarized lens that is making the rainbow curved? Hmm, could be the Crystal Dome Firmament.

7. Wrong again, in 1901 "Italian physicist and radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi succeeds in sending the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean, disproving detractors who told him that the curvature of the earth would limit transmission to 200 miles or less. "
Source: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/marconi-sends-first-atlantic-wireless-transmission

8. I mean come on now... the fact they can bounce radio waves off the sky should give you a clue. The Bible clearly says the sky is a Crystal Dome.

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Job 37:18

9. Actually, it was proven recently that it is not a mirage:


10. It means that pictures taken from airplanes, the ground and all other angles all show the pyramids in the same orientation. Meaning the earth is not a spinning ball. If it were a spinning ball then the pyramids would be "tilted" in different directions depending on the orientation of the earth and the observer.

11. It is misleading to use static figures for the earth's curve, when the curve gets exponentially larger the further the distance. At 8 inches x Miles (squared) you get 600 feet over 30 miles drop in curvature. It is easy to see 30 miles on a clear day and never has anyone seen or measured 600 foot drop over 30 miles.

12. Definitely proof:


13.  That's strange, they claim THIS is the real photo of earth (looks much different)
http://gizmodo.com/5909215/this-is-the-definitive-photograph-of-planet-earth

Unlike NASA's Blue Marble—which is a composite made from many different photographs—this is a portrait of Earth taken in one single shot.

Note: We all know that none of these ball-earth photos are real.

14. Yawn.

Why are a couple of badly produced and dodgy youtube videos considered instant irrefutable proof by FEers, but millions of pictures, films and measurements are considered faked?

Why do the crazy "moonlandings where faked" videos have more weight than the thousands upon thousands of pictures, artefacts and experiments that prove tye moonlandings were real?

Terrible Rebuttal I give it 2/10 stars.

Completely useless reply! I won't waste my time rating it!
I am rushing at present (yes, to get to bed!), but if you really want each itme discussed in full I'll oblige.

1. Everyone knows the horizon is flat and eye level.

"Everyone knows the horizon is flat", yes I agree with that, as it should be on ball!
"Everyone knows the horizon is . . . (at) eye level.", BUT, (1) "Everyone" does not know! and (2) "Everyone" knows is NOT any PROOF!

Ask any surveyor to measure the "dip angle" to the horizon. Ships navigators have know of it for centuries, or are ship's navigators and surveyors all  Freemasons  ?

2. Water is Flat and Level hence "Levels" are made using water.

"Water is Flat and Level" over short distances, but is clearly NOT always.

3. Can you prove that? There are star charts from China that are 3000+ years old that match perfectly with modern star charts. So we have absolutely no proof that Thuban was the North star, just a theory.

So Chinese star charts are supposed to be better than Egyptian! In any case, there is plenty of evidence that Polaris has move quite considerably in even the past 1,000 years.

4. NASA seems to disagree with you, "The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size."
Source: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html

No NASA doesn't disagree! And they are NOT my figures! I gave you actual, fairly precise, data and photographs.

 It is true that "The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be (almost) the same size." Note the about and (my added) almost.

They are only appear roughly the same size, but in any case how is that proof or even evidence?

5. Tell me how the sun's reflection can even reach the feet of the observer when the "curve" of the earth should be blocking the sun's rays from reaching that far?

It is scientific fact that light converges to a point on a sphere:

"The sun's reflection can even reach the feet of the observer" simply because the sun is not hidden by the curve, just NEAR the horizon!
No, not at all! The earth is so huge (12,700 km) and the length of the reflection so small (a few km) that the reflaction is almost parallel, but appears to get smaller in the distance, just as railway tracks appear to converge - you HAVE seen that?

6. If raindrops are individually creating prisms of light then how come rainbows don't consist of millions of tiny rainbows? Instead, it is one large rainbow with the colors going through multiple raindrops.

Because what you see is "millions of tiny rainbows"! There is no mystery, just your ignorance on the topic.
Look, in this space I am not going into a great discourse on rainbows! Make that a topic and I sure will - till you're sick of the sight of rainbows!

Also, rainbows that are created inside using a mirror are straight. Rainbows outside are curved, why? Where is the curved polarized lens that is making the rainbow curved? Hmm, could be the Crystal Dome Firmament.

(1) You cannot make a rainbow with a "mirror", you need a prism or refraction grating of some sort.
(2) Rainbows made outside from refraction and total internal reflection in millions of minute droplets of water.

7. Wrong again, in 1901 "Italian physicist and radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi succeeds in sending the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean, disproving detractors who told him that the curvature of the earth would limit transmission to 200 miles or less. "
Source: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/marconi-sends-first-atlantic-wireless-transmission

I do think that the knowledge of the mechanism of radio propagation has progressed since Guglielmo Marconi's day. He knew nothing of the the "ionosphere" - it was not thought of then! Get a little up to date!

8. I mean come on now... the fact they can bounce radio waves off the sky should give you a clue. The Bible clearly says the sky is a Crystal Dome.

Quote

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Job 37:18

Now you're the radio expert! No I do not accept the literal meaning of that. For a start it is simply a question as says says "as a molten looking glass" and it does not say "the sky" IS "a molten looking glass".

9. Actually, it was proven recently that it is not a mirage:

Proven in  "Rob Skiba proves the Chicago skyline"  , you jest! All he proves is that part of Chicago is hidden from even a much closer range!

10. It means that pictures taken from airplanes, the ground and all other angles all show the pyramids in the same orientation. Meaning the earth is not a spinning ball. If it were a spinning ball then the pyramids would be "tilted" in different directions depending on the orientation of the earth and the observer.

What are you talking about, again? The aircraft if flying in the air, the air is stationary relative to the earth (spinning or not) apart from local winds. What you are saying is nonsense! Maybe give some reference of photos of what you mean. What difference would a globe or spinning earth make.

11. It is misleading to use static figures for the earth's curve, when the curve gets exponentially larger the further the distance. At 8 inches x Miles (squared) you get 600 feet over 30 miles drop in curvature. It is easy to see 30 miles on a clear day and never has anyone seen or measured 600 foot drop over 30 miles.

We are looking at tilt, not "curvature"! Tilt  means ANGLE and over even a 1 mile block the "tilt" is only 0.015° .
If you are talking about the "tilt backwards" of distant buildings. There is absulutely NO WAY you could see a 1° tilt backwards for a building 69 miles away.

12. Definitely proof:

A youtube video is "Definite proof"? Really? I can prove anything I like from youtube videos! But your "Definite proof" says the picture of earth was taken from "Low Earth Orbit"! THAT PROVES that the earth is a globe! You cannot orbit a flat earth!

13.  That's strange, they claim THIS is the real photo of earth (looks much different)
http://gizmodo.com/5909215/this-is-the-definitive-photograph-of-planet-earth

Quote

Unlike NASA's Blue Marble—which is a composite made from many different photographs—this is a portrait of Earth taken in one single shot.

Note: We all know that none of these ball-earth photos are real.

Yes, some of the original images were composites. You need to be some 20,000 km away to get good single shots and the look of a Globe depends a lot on the actual distance (taken much closer than 20,000 km will appear to enlarge continents in the middle) and of course on the Globe - it is a 3D object.

And "We all know that none of these ball-earth photos are real" is completely untrue, and you simply don't have the evidence to claim it!

14. Yawn.

Might well you yawn after "No, you falsely claimed it was "Photoshopped" and were proved wrong! It might have been resaved to a lower resolution. That is no surprise as the uncompressed original was a file of about 170 MB!"

I agree "Yawn" - as I sad before, all you are proving is your own complete ignorance of how the Globe "works".

Now what about explaining the simple things we can ALL see, just a couple;
sunrises and sunsets (look and direction),
the constancy apparent size of the sun and moon from rising to setting,
the sharp sky-sea horizon on a clear day at sea and
the rotation of the stars in a clockwise direction around the South Celestial Pole in the Southern Hemisphere - I can see these, even if you can't.

<< too late to check for errors >>

5. Tell me how the sun's reflection can even reach the feet of the observer when the "curve" of the earth should be blocking the sun's rays from reaching that far?

Blocking the sun's rays?  You can SEE the sun in this picture.  There are times when the "curve of the earth blocks the sun's rays" from reaching you.  Those times are called "night".

This photo is not one of those times

Terrible Rebuttal I give it 2/10 stars.

1. The horizon is too far away to tell the difference between the actual horizon and 6ft above it, the horizon doesn't RISE to eye level, eyes simply focus ON the horizon

2. water finds its level in accordance with the spherical shape gravity gives off

3. The stars we see are moving with us as they're all part of our galaxy, everything spins, simple answer

4. I agree it's a wonderful coincidence, but mathematics prove this one.. the reasons FE's use for determining a localised sun don't work upon testing

5. again, very simple, the same answer as to why a train track disappears to a point.. perspective

6. The dome is disproven by meteors' existence

7. never looked into it

8. see 6.

9. when the photo is taken from ground level, the skyline is no longer visible, proving curvature)

10. i'm not sure I understand this, are you claiming its impossible to take a photo of the pyramids from the side?

11. you're simply underestimating the size of the earth in comparison to us and our buildings

12. There are reflectors on the moon that humans have placed there, it admittedly doesn't prove humans have been, but we've sent something at the very least

13. nasa admit SOME are composites, but they're not the only ones to have full original photos, russia and china have released full original photos of the earth
FE's just always claim they're fake

14. I'd like to see a cross examination of this photo where it was proven to be faked as i've not seen it


the flat earth versions of the above are 'assumed'
the globe earth versions are 'proven'
THAT'S the difference

There is something I keep noticing. The argument about water 'flowing up hill' or 'water is level therefor the Earth is flat'.

This seems to hinge on the idea that gravity is somehow below the earth, pulling down on it. If that were the case then water would drip off the world.

In stead, the Earth's mass results in gravity that pulls everything to its center. That means the water is pulled towards the center as well. The water would be 'smeared' all over the surface, pool in deep places and 'make way' for higher places. I don't really understand why that is beyond FEers grasp.

Regarding the horizon: I just picked up my guitar, a smoot curved surface. If I take a picture of the side from close enough, and then zoom in on the picture, I see a straight line. This is the same thing that would happen if you were standing on the surface of a large sphere. The larger the sphere, the more it would seem from the small person standing on it, that the surface is indeed flat.

This is not a very difficult thing to understand. Just because something looks a certain way does not mean it is a certain way.

If you look at a drop of water, it looks clear. But put under a microscope, you'd find all kinds of small things in there. Just because you can't see it with your regular eyes from your current point of view does not mean it's not there at all.

Is this difficult to accept? If so: why?

12. Definitely proof:

that is proof only that Sibrel lied to you and you fell for it.  The hoaxer Bart Sibrel cut out parts of the footage that prove him wrong.

Explained here


And here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
continued here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

Fantastic OP Rabinoz!!

loved it!!

The "proofs" iWitness gives for his Flat Earth are listed below.  I could not comment in his thread. That would have been against the rules! So what comments do people have?
If iWitness can list them as 14 of more "proofs" in one block, surely I can list them in one post.

I don't argue with his right to hold these, but when he accuses others as being "all children of NWO Satanists" he has gone too far!

Clearly, I cannot give detailed rebuttals here, but where other posts have refuted his claims I will try to list those.

• The most obvious proof is that the Horizon is Flat, Eye-level and does not drop when altitude is gained.
  There is a real dip to the sea horizon at any height above sea-level. All navigators using "celestial navigation" have to allow for it.
  You might want to look at: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Flat Earth Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level disproved.

Without knowing whether he is using the app correctly, or has any reference for bearing level, this video debunks nothing.

[/li][li]There are many other proofs that add to my belief like water being perfectly level,
It might be your belief, but it is not necessarily true, see Is it true that water "always seek its own level" and if so is it always "Flat"?

Water at rest does form a level surface. We witness this everyday! Nothing to contradict this observation! Always has and always will. Your picture of convex water is simply your belief. Cannot reproduce it in real life without a four sided flexible container. Which does not exist in nature.

Quote

[/li][li]star constellations not changing in 5000 years,
That is completely untrue. Around 3,000 BC the faint star Thuban in the constellation Draco was the North Star, see

Quote from: Wikipedia

Pole_star, Historical
The North Star has historically been used for navigation since Late Antiquity, both to find the direction of north and to determine latitude.

The path of the north celestial pole amongst the stars due to the effect of precession, with dates shown
Due to the precession of the equinoxes (as well as the stars' proper motions), the role of North Star passes from one star to another.
In 3000 BCE, the faint star Thuban in the constellation Draco was the North Star. At magnitude 3.67 (fourth magnitude) it is only one-fifth as bright as Polaris, and today it is invisible in light-polluted urban skies.
During the 1st millennium BCE, β Ursae Minoris was the bright star closest to the celestial pole, but it was never close enough to be taken as marking the pole, and the Greek navigator Pytheas in ca. 320 BCE described the celestial pole as devoid of stars.

from Wikipedia, Pole_star

This is all bullshit. No proof. And flies directly in the face of other famous claims by globularists, such as, "The reason there is no apparent change in the stars above is because they are so far away!" Yet here you are claiming a change has happened in the last 5000 years or so...This means many other changes should have happened over the course of those 5000 years, including now...Go get your tit out of the wringer...

Quote

[/li][li]sun and moon being the same exact size,
No, they are not. The sun's angular size varies from about 0.52° to 0.54° and the moon's from about 0.49° to 0.55°, quite a significant variation.

The Moon at Perigee and Apogee

From Inconstant Moon.
And even if they were the same apparent size, it would prove what? That the sun and moon are the same apparent size!

While having nothing to do with the shape of the earth specifically, the fact the Sun and Moon above are the same apparent size in the sky does lend credence to the idea things were put in place and also points to the utter bullshit put out as fact by scientists.

Quote

[/li][li]reflection of Sunlight on water does not converge but widens as it reaches the observer (light converges on a spherical surface),
This does not prove anything. The reflection "but widens as it reaches the observer" simply because it is everywhere almost the same width, looks to widen near the observer for the obvious reason, perspective.

It would converge at the point of the observer. And it does not.

More to follow.[/list]

Water at rest does form a level surface. We witness this everyday! Nothing to contradict this observation! Always has and always will. Your picture of convex water is simply your belief. Cannot reproduce it in real life without a four sided flexible container. Which does not exist in nature.

  Drops of water in whatever surface. Or have you ever filled glass so that liquid surface it is not level anymore but is convex surface. Kind of like that http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg

Quote from: totallackey on August 23, 2016, 03:49:02 PM

Water at rest does form a level surface. We witness this everyday! Nothing to contradict this observation! Always has and always will. Your picture of convex water is simply your belief. Cannot reproduce it in real life without a four sided flexible container. Which does not exist in nature.

  Drops of water in whatever surface. Or have you ever filled glass so that liquid surface it is not level anymore but is convex surface. Kind of like that http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg

Hayseed...that is surface tension and nowhere near what we are talking about here...go peddle your papers elsewhere, sonny boy.

Quote from: zork on August 23, 2016, 03:58:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 23, 2016, 03:49:02 PM

Water at rest does form a level surface. We witness this everyday! Nothing to contradict this observation! Always has and always will. Your picture of convex water is simply your belief. Cannot reproduce it in real life without a four sided flexible container. Which does not exist in nature.

  Drops of water in whatever surface. Or have you ever filled glass so that liquid surface it is not level anymore but is convex surface. Kind of like that http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg

Hayseed...that is surface tension and nowhere near what we are talking about here...go peddle your papers elsewhere, sonny boy.

I'm not any "sonny boy" and I don't take orders from a "Total Lackey"! And we all know what a "Lackey" is!

You claim "Cannot reproduce it in real life without a four sided flexible container. Which does not exist in nature."
Well, it can be any shaped or even no container and it DOES OCCUR in nature! Ever seen an eddy or whirlpool in water?

Of course, I know that a dew drop is shaped like that because of "surface tension"!

What causes the "curving" of water in the rotating tank? Or, the curving of water in an eddy or whirlpool? These are due to rotation causing an "acceleration".

What causes the "curving" of water that must be present to give us the tides, some are as high as 50 feet caused by surface tension? This time the sun and moon's gravitation + other effects.

What causes the "curving" of water that must be present to give us "storm surges"? This time, it's the variation in atmospheric pressure.

In equilibrium over small distances, the surface level of water is so close to level that it is used as a "level"!
Even over a distance of a mile the surface only deviated 2 inches from its "level" at the centre!


If you don't believe the earth is a Globe, fine, but don't try to push the "shape of water" as evidence, it isn't!

You might claim that gravitation has not been proven. Well, that's quite another story, but it has been demonstrated and measured dozens of times. And why can't you easily do it yourself in your garage? It has been done very roughly, but gravitation is so small that is extremely difficult to demonstrate in the presence of a massive object some 7.5 x 10²² times heavier than you are - just a little "interference".

1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13..

17, 21, 22 ;-).

Anyway,

Moral of the story is don't f**k with Rabinoz.

Quote from: zork on August 23, 2016, 03:58:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 23, 2016, 03:49:02 PM

Water at rest does form a level surface. We witness this everyday! Nothing to contradict this observation! Always has and always will. Your picture of convex water is simply your belief. Cannot reproduce it in real life without a four sided flexible container. Which does not exist in nature.

  Drops of water in whatever surface. Or have you ever filled glass so that liquid surface it is not level anymore but is convex surface. Kind of like that http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg

Hayseed...that is surface tension and nowhere near what we are talking about here...go peddle your papers elsewhere, sonny boy.

  Yes, surface tension and I can produce convex water surface with it which you claimed is not possible. I showed that I can, so put your tail between your legs anda whimper away.

Quote from: Johnorbital on August 23, 2016, 02:58:23 AM

1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13..

17, 21, 22 ;-).

Anyway,

Moral of the story is don't f**k with Rabinoz.

The clue's in the name, he's from Oz, you don't get southern hemisphere flat earthers

..with good reason

Quote from: totallackey on August 23, 2016, 04:06:19 PM

Quote from: zork on August 23, 2016, 03:58:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 23, 2016, 03:49:02 PM

Water at rest does form a level surface. We witness this everyday! Nothing to contradict this observation! Always has and always will. Your picture of convex water is simply your belief. Cannot reproduce it in real life without a four sided flexible container. Which does not exist in nature.

  Drops of water in whatever surface. Or have you ever filled glass so that liquid surface it is not level anymore but is convex surface. Kind of like that http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg

Hayseed...that is surface tension and nowhere near what we are talking about here...go peddle your papers elsewhere, sonny boy.

I'm not any "sonny boy" and I don't take orders from a "Total Lackey"! And we all know what a "Lackey" is!

You claim "Cannot reproduce it in real life without a four sided flexible container. Which does not exist in nature."
Well, it can be any shaped or even no container and it DOES OCCUR in nature! Ever seen an eddy or whirlpool in water?

Of course, I know that a dew drop is shaped like that because of "surface tension"!

What causes the "curving" of water in the rotating tank? Or, the curving of water in an eddy or whirlpool? These are due to rotation causing an "acceleration".

What causes the "curving" of water that must be present to give us the tides, some are as high as 50 feet caused by surface tension? This time the sun and moon's gravitation + other effects.

What causes the "curving" of water that must be present to give us "storm surges"? This time, it's the variation in atmospheric pressure.

In equilibrium over small distances, the surface level of water is so close to level that it is used as a "level"!
Even over a distance of a mile the surface only deviated 2 inches from its "level" at the centre!

So, what is the big deal about the curving of the water about the Globe being caused by gravitation?

If you don't believe the earth is a Globe, fine, but don't try to push the "shape of water" as evidence, it isn't!

You might claim that gravitation has not been proven. Well, that's quite another story, but it has been demonstrated and measured dozens of times. And why can't you easily do it yourself in your garage? It has been done very roughly, but gravitation is so small that is extremely difficult to demonstrate in the presence of a massive object some 7.5 x 10²² times heavier than you are - just a little "interference".

The only cause for water to take a convex shape that has been definitively proven is surface tension. You have no evidence the oceans or any other large body of water curves over the surface of a sphere. You have conjecture and the overwhelming need to be right in your worldview. Life does not work that way. Neither does actual science.

Quote from: totallackey on August 23, 2016, 04:06:19 PM

Quote from: zork on August 23, 2016, 03:58:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 23, 2016, 03:49:02 PM

Water at rest does form a level surface. We witness this everyday! Nothing to contradict this observation! Always has and always will. Your picture of convex water is simply your belief. Cannot reproduce it in real life without a four sided flexible container. Which does not exist in nature.

  Drops of water in whatever surface. Or have you ever filled glass so that liquid surface it is not level anymore but is convex surface. Kind of like that http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg

Hayseed...that is surface tension and nowhere near what we are talking about here...go peddle your papers elsewhere, sonny boy.

  Yes, surface tension and I can produce convex water surface with it which you claimed is not possible. I showed that I can, so put your tail between your legs anda whimper away.

Surface tension is not what the subject matter is you dip, and I clearly stated that, except to people choosing to behave as or otherwise actually morons.

Quote from: Johnorbital on August 23, 2016, 02:58:23 AM

1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13..

17, 21, 22 ;-).

Anyway,

Moral of the story is don't f**k with Rabinoz.

Moral of the story is that Geoff keeps posting bullshit representations of reality, due to his never ending state of inebriation. That is all he knows how to do.

Cannot replicate his diagram in reality. Therefore, it cannot be independently tested. Therefore, it is junk.

Quote from: disputeone on August 23, 2016, 08:15:50 PM

Quote from: Johnorbital on August 23, 2016, 02:58:23 AM

1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13..

17, 21, 22 ;-).

Anyway,

Moral of the story is don't f**k with Rabinoz.

Moral of the story is that Geoff keeps posting bullshit representations of reality, due to his never ending state of inebriation. That is all he knows how to do.

Cannot replicate his diagram in reality. Therefore, it cannot be independently tested. Therefore, it is junk.

proof totallackey is papa legba

Moral of the story is that Geoff keeps posting bullshit representations of reality, due to his never ending state of inebriation.

That is all he knows how to do.

Cannot replicate his diagram in reality.

Therefore, it cannot be independently tested.

Therefore, it is junk.

The only cause for water to take a convex shape that has been definitively proven is surface tension. You have no evidence the oceans or any other large body of water curves over the surface of a sphere. You have conjecture and the overwhelming need to be right in your worldview. Life does not work that way. Neither does actual science.

Wrong,
Stir some water in a glass, it curves!
The water in a rotating bowl curves!
The surface of waves is both concave and convex!
The surface of the ocean raised by a storm surge is convex! Yes, over a huge area, but the curve on the globe is over a much bigger area.

And, since the measurements of the earth prove it cannot be flat, then something must "stick" all that water on.

But who cares, the facts don't depend on what a Total Lackey thinks.

Quote from: zork on August 24, 2016, 12:11:14 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 23, 2016, 04:06:19 PM

Quote from: zork on August 23, 2016, 03:58:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 23, 2016, 03:49:02 PM

Water at rest does form a level surface. We witness this everyday! Nothing to contradict this observation! Always has and always will. Your picture of convex water is simply your belief. Cannot reproduce it in real life without a four sided flexible container. Which does not exist in nature.

  Drops of water in whatever surface. Or have you ever filled glass so that liquid surface it is not level anymore but is convex surface. Kind of like that http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg

Hayseed...that is surface tension and nowhere near what we are talking about here...go peddle your papers elsewhere, sonny boy.

  Yes, surface tension and I can produce convex water surface with it which you claimed is not possible. I showed that I can, so put your tail between your legs anda whimper away.

Surface tension is not what the subject matter is you dip, and I clearly stated that, except to people choosing to behave as or otherwise actually morons.

  Nice backpedaling. Where did you specify on your original post that surface tension is excluded from conversation? Quote please.

Quote from: totallackey on August 24, 2016, 02:49:36 PM

Surface tension is not what the subject matter is you dip, and I clearly stated that, except to people choosing to behave as or otherwise actually morons.

  Nice backpedaling. Where did you specify on your original post that surface tension is excluded from conversation? Quote please.

By the way, I believe that the OP was mine (RABinOZ) not the "Total Lackey", so HE can hardly exclude "surface tension" from conversation, just sayin'.