No, it really does work, but only in ideal experimental conditions, otherwise the hooshing effect of your hand or something will be stronger. And it works like a cyclonic low, not an anticyclonic high -- that is, it turns anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere.

It depends how far north you are. It's pretty strongly anticlockwise if you pull the plug out a bath in northern England (unless it is some weird shape), which is comparable latitude to southern Alaska. I wanted to see if it really went the other way in Australia, but the methodist women's hostel (don't ask) I was staying at had pretty wide plugholes and the water just shot straight down but I asked Australians who said they had never really noticed so that's pretty inconclusive then.

And?

I can't believe that OP is serious... It seems to me like a long running 'I'll use this account to wind people up when I'm bored' kind of situation.

Could be wrong obviously.

I wonder what the FE'rs will say when there are thousands and eventually hundreds of thousands of space tourists seeing the round earth for themselves?

That's a lot of covering up to do!

Fwiw, if the earth was shrunk down to the size of a pool ball, it would be rounder and smoother apparently.

Your answer is illuminati, my answer to your already covered point is law of perspective. Who sounds smarter?

I was responding to the question why is the equation drop = miles^2 * 8in and not drop = miles * 8in. Please graph that and tell me how what you did is relevant....

This site is full of ******ed group think. Ever since an original debate that basically said healthy organic food isnt any healthier I've lost faith in the critical reasoning skills of most people here. Now it's all fun and button pushing.

I await the days when tourists can verify a RE.

Fenix,

What's the message behind all this? Say everything you claim is true, how and why should it change our daily life?

“While the premise makes sense - that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.” -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?” Science.HowStuffWorks.com

-One less piece of propaganda cluttering peoples beliefs.
-Reexamine thoughts about God and place in Universe.
-Build Tower of Babel instead of funding NASA.

Four conclusive experiments prove that the Sun, Moon and stars revolve around us, and that Earth is the fixed, motionless center of the universe. The Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy's Failure and Sagnac experiments scientifically proved Geocentricity. An incorrect interpretation of the Michelson-Morley results are now commonly taught and the other 3 experiments are never covered in any university courses. These conclusive peer-reviewed and repeated scientific results are nowhere debated or denied, merely suppressed and ignored.

He mentions tower of babel in a debate about a round earth and people whine about the thread debating religion.

You don't seem to be particularly concerned with debating any of the counter arguments in this thread and just want somewhere to post your dumb youtubes and stuff you copy pasted.

Ok.

I dont see any arguments that I'm ignoring...

If you thought there was a dome or plane that we lived in/on you're telling me you'd be against working together to build something to find out? lol

OK, here's why there is no midnight sun in the southern hemisphere (except Antarctica, where there IS a midnight sun)

The land mass in the southern hemisphere is far closer to the equator that that in the north.

The most southern city on earth, Ushuaia, is at 54.8 degrees S latitude, which is not much different than Berlin, which is 52.5 degrees N latitude. So hey, there's no midnight sun in Berlin, either.

Note: I normally try not to respond to idiots, but this thread is so LOL, I have to subscribe.

If I recall correctly, you made that equation up. That's why it has a square term. Without pulling the quote, you "explained" that the squared term is necessary in order to make a circle. This is just not the case. That's not the equation for a circle. It's the equation for a parabola. There's no manner of measuring what you could possibly mean that makes it a circle. As I showed in the drawing, vertical drop off measured along a tangent line can be (ie, "is") constant for both a line and a circle.

My drawing explicitly shows why the equation IS drop = miles * constant.

A straightforward formula of "vertical drop off from any given point at a distance x = (distance x) ^ 2 * constant" is not consistent with any geometry.

Without drawing a picture again, consider this:

Me --- 2 miles --- You --- 2 miles --- other person

In your universe, the vertical drop off between me and you should be 2^2 * 8" = 32". Same for you to other person. So, if I combined those, I should get the vertical drop off from me to the other person, since otherwise the universe doesn't make sense, right? So that's 64"

But, if I just checked the vertical drop off from me to the other person, it should be 4^2 * 8" = 128", which is not the same as 64". Is your argument in some way that space is nonlinear, that distances are not additive, or that this is all "perspective"? Or are you satisfied that a circle can have constant drop off, and that the equation for a circle is not the same as the equation for a parabola?

Lol, got 4 minutes into that video. "There's no real video of planets!!!" 30 seconds later: "Oh wait, there is. But doesn't it look fake?!! It's not even in color?!" 30 seconds later: "Oh wait, here's one with color. Obviously photoshopped though, look at the pixels!!" Convincing evidence.

Citanaul the formula is drop = miles^2*8 but by all means please write to NASA and every university department in the world, they will be sure to change their formula for you!

RF,

Are there any beliefs about the FE model that are generally accepted by most FE'rs that you dont agree with?

You keep talking about moving away from group think and whatnot but it seems like you are just joining a much smaller group that behaves exactly the same. Being in the minority doesn't make you any more free thinking than the majority.

You obviously didn't formulate your FE belief individually and merely adopted it after reading about it.

Attacking the presentation format but not the videos themselves. The dissonance is strong in this one.

RF, help me understand this please. You say that as you look out towards the horizon it appears as if the water rises and the sky falls in such a way that it comes to a convergence point. I think we can agree on that. So then the furthest point of water should appear highest as it rises, correct? But then you say the water appears higher then the hull because it is closer which directly goes against the idea that what we see rises as it gets further away.

Oh, I'm attacking the videos themselves. They're gibberish done by people with no scientific knowledge or ability who think they can explain away centuries of research and documented evidence by saying stuff like "Does this look real to you?". Even by conspiracy propagandist standards they're laughable.

Coasterbrad I hope this explains it a bit better.

Observer ------------------------------------XYZ---BOAT----------------

If -'s are the water at some point around XYZ the water is going to obscure the lower part of BOAT (the hull) so that it'd look like ----XYZboAT--- where AT (being the mast) is still visible.

Since we are talking about distances that approach the horizon the ---- past the BOAT will be lower than both the hull and mast and not visible (the boat appears to be dancing atop the end of horizon). However if you saw the boat much closer to shore you would still see the --- beyond the boat rising to the horizon.


This is a good example of how the water appears higher than objects until you see farther with aid of zoom/binoculars/etc and then the law of perspective resets to new viewpoint.

Theyre a lot of ideas that the stars and moon are holograms or projections which I dont believe in. The possibility that the earth is concave is pretty wild.

And this isnt CGI either right?