I can't tell if you're serious with that one

@UltimateLifeformGappy Of course it is serious. If you were to put a level over water, what would it show?

To take it further, can you post your own level experiment that shows water curve?

These are simple things everyone can do.

Why would a level show a curve? I don't get it. Wouldn't it show the water to be level regardless of the model?

Well I have a level on my tripod I guess I could give that a go.

You got a better experiment?

We have testable results

Yeah, actually, I don’t understand the “level” point.

Water always finds and maintains level. Prove it wrong.

I understand how Bedford level shows flat water.

I’m just saying I don’t get how whipping out a level would prove something is flat.

It just proves that something is level, lol.

Cuz it shows level

What experiment do you have to disprove it?

My point about the level picture is that I can balance a level on top of a ball and show the same thing.

And I’m not talking about Bedford

We are open to see any other experiments

Just Sheeple’s picture

Yes. Its a great picture

Show the simplicity

It is a nice picture, lol

I just don’t see it proving a point,

If you can disprove it then okay

I have a level in my dorm

Obviously in that section of soil, its flat

When I get back after finals studying Monday, I can show a picture of what I mean.

All water is flat

So you have an angled surface?

I’m not talking about that, Z, lmao

I am

Mostly flat

Then we have a fundamental disagreement of premise and there’s no point continuing, lol

I’m not arguing against FE,

So water curves with a level?

I’m just curious how that “level on ground” picture demonstrates anything

It demonstrates that area of the ground is level

Because I can do the same thing but put the level on a ball.

Its not hard to understand

I would get the same result as long as I balance the level.

A third grader could grasp that concept

Oh, that I realize.

You are thinking to much into it

But that picture doesn’t actually disprove what I am referring to.

Not really

It’s just one specific picture that I am curious about.

Its proving that area is locally level

Yes, but by that standard I can prove a ball is locally level by balancing a level on the surface of that ball.

Which is sort of true, but also not.

Now put water on the ball and level it out

Those are very different (water on a ball Vs. Level on ground).

I think you’re interpreting my questions in a larger scale than I mean for, Oh well.

Im saying water is level and doesn't bend around a spinning ball in a vacuum. Also, overall, the land is flat.

Yeah, I’m not even disagreeing that almost everything is locally flat.

If you look over large distances of land, you will find it doesnt have curvature consistent with a 24901 ball.

My only question was regarding a single, very specific image and its goal.

And kind of also pointing out how that one picture doesn’t really show anything.

Yes. Sheeples pic proved that area was also flat

I guess I’m still not getting my point across, but good talk anyways, Citizen.

I know your point

Maybe I’m just not understanding your answer, then.

Regardless, not much point in continuing.

Still not a bad discussion

Better than the crap in <#484514023698726912>, by a mile.

I appreciate your time, Z

You think sheeples picture is a small area and not proof of a flat earth or disproving a globe. Which you would be correct. It does however, prove that area is locally level

Wow

That’s actually exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for

*Problem solved, lmao*

Lol

That makes more sense, now

Its about what we can prove thru experiment

Not what we assume or guess

When I get back to my dorm in a few days, I’ll grab a level and show you what I mean by a counter demonstration.

Not much point in me trying to explain it until then

Salt flats for instance..400 square miles..level

This is nice, btw, Z

Kind of like old times

Haha

Yeah bro

XD

bolivia salt flats ..4,000* sq mi

--sq mi that big, and only 3ft 3in variation, in the whole thing, ..impossible on a ball earth the size they tell us.....

@Ætos -- i know you think we're wrong bro, but ..we're not.....

I’m actually not questioning that

I was just curious what Sheeple’s picture was supposed to convey.

Because Gappy is right, it’s a borderline memey image

But after Citizen’s explanation, the point of it makes a lot more sense.

i know all that ; )

i was juss correcting Z's typo though ✔

4,000 sq mi (is correct), not 400 *

I just wanna know what I'd expect to see with a level on the globe model vs a flat earth model

What would be the difference

It’s the same.

That's what I'm thinking

Which is kind of the point I was making

But I was also under the wrong impression that Sheeple’s image was meant to show what you mentioned.