Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

11
Twelve questions for u/Eisenhorn (www.youtube.com)
posted 2 years ago by Traps4GME 2 years ago by Traps4GME +11 / -0
48 comments share
48 comments share save hide report block hide replies
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (48)
sorted by:
▲ 1 ▼
– Eisenhorn 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

The same things that you measure when you believe it is!

But it measures the curvature. Your reasoning is circular.

It is also important to recognize that the procedure you linked to is in no way an experiment.

Of course it is an experiment. You have no idea what you are talking about.

You just keep moving the goalposts. Every time one of your arguments is refuted you just answer with "Yes but that's not what I really meant".

Same with your claim that curvature cannot be observed. Once I explained to you how to observe it you just moved the goal posts to "yeah but that's not the way i imagined It".

You are starting with very broad statements and once you are shown to be wrong, you add conditions. That's not how it works.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– jack445566778899 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

But it measures the curvature

No, you merely believe it does. What device measures this curvature?

You calculate the curvature you assume is there using measurements of things which are NOT the curvature. Please let me know if you do not understand me, or still disagree!

Your reasoning is circular.

Please formally/explicitly describe it so i can understand what you mean. From my point of view, using calculations which depend on the world being spherical to "measure" that believed curvature is plainly the circular logic.

Of course it is an experiment. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Your definition for experiment is wrong. There is no hypothesis, there is no iv or dv, there are no controls - it is in no way an experiment. It is merely a few measurements followed by a calculation which assumes / requires the world is/be spherical.

Once I explained to you how to observe it you just moved the goal posts to "yeah but that's not the way i imagined It".

There are no goal posts to move, and this is merely a discussion. You are NOT observing (or measuring) the "curved water". Full stop. You are measuring something which is NOT that curvature and then calculating curvature assuming it were the cause. There is a large and important difference which i am hoping is not lost on you. The water was never curved from your vantage and you never saw any curved water - right?

You are starting with very broad statements and once you are shown to be wrong, you add conditions

You may feel that way, but that is certainly not my intention. My original claim was that no one has ever directly measured the curvature the globe model describes in still water - including frozen lakes which are many miles long. No conditions have been added nor have you shown this claim to be wrong (though i would be pleased if you could!).

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Eisenhorn 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

No, you merely believe it does. What device measures this curvature?

How would you measure the curvature of things then?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– jack445566778899 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

I can think of several ways, but to directly measure the surface of the water (for curvature or anything else) - you have to actually measure the surface of the water. Right?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Eisenhorn 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

You tell me. You claim that the method i presented doesn't work, so, present a method that works.

You won't because you can't.

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No subversion.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
  • Perun
  • Thisisnotanexit
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2026.02.01 - bh6wd (status)

Copyright © 2026.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy