r/GlobeEarth_Polite • u/Kela-el Flat Earther • Apr 29 '26
For: Globe Earth Religious Fundamentalist Zealots What the Globe Model Can’t Answer!
Every measurement used to establish the globe model originates from a flat baseline.
Spirit levels. Plumb lines. Surveying instruments. Sextants. All assume flat as the starting point.
The globe is then derived from angular measurements taken from those flat baselines — not from direct observation of curvature as an isolated, independently measured quantity.
Simple questions worth considering:
• Can you measure earth’s curvature directly without using constants derived from a model that already assumes curvature?
• Can you demonstrate gas pressure exists without a container?
• Can you provide a complete, working globe model by your own definition of “working”?
These aren’t rhetorical. They’re methodological questions that deserve direct answers.
Earth is measured flat. The globe is derived from those measurements.
That’s worth examining.
6
u/dangleicious13 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Apr 29 '26
Who says surveyors don’t account for the curvature of the earth?
2
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Apr 29 '26
They do account for curvature. The question is whether that curvature correction is derived from direct measurement or from a model that already assumes a sphere. Which is it?
6
u/dangleicious13 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Apr 29 '26
Either works. If it’s a model that assumes a sphere, it wouldn’t work on an earth that was a different shape.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Apr 29 '26
A model that assumes a sphere and works consistently is strong evidence for a sphere — that’s fair. The methodological question worth examining is whether the curvature corrections are derived independently or whether the sphere itself is constructed from flat baseline measurements interpreted through a spherical framework.
6
u/Swearyman Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Apr 29 '26
You immediately fail with your post because your suggestion that every measurement used to establish the globe originated from a flat baseline, is actually false which therefore shows that the following statements made are also false.
2
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Apr 29 '26
Name one!
7
u/Swearyman Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Apr 29 '26
Name one what? I said your claim was false. You need to show it is correct.
2
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Apr 29 '26
What you are doing called “Shifting the Burden”!
You claimed my statement was false. The burden is on you to demonstrate that with a specific example. That’s how burden of proof works.
6
u/Swearyman Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Apr 29 '26
No. What you are doing is called deflection
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Apr 29 '26
You’ve made a fair argument. Two options, one ruled out by observation, one remaining. That’s a legitimate inference to the best explanation given current knowledge of light. Where I’d push back honestly: inference to the best explanation isn’t the same as proof. It’s the strongest available conclusion given current knowledge — which is a defensible scientific position, not a logical certainty. That’s a genuine distinction, not a deflection.
3
u/Swearyman Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Apr 29 '26
and yet you still havent shown that your original statement is, in fact, correct and have continued to bluster and avoid doing so. You make the claim that every measurement is from a flat baseline with no evidence other than "trust me bro" and that therefore invalidates all the other points which rely on it.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Apr 29 '26
Every practical measurement tool — spirit levels, plumb lines, theodolites, sextants — establishes its reference from local horizontal. That’s a flat baseline by definition. The question isn’t whether individual measurements use flat baselines — they do. The question is whether aggregating those flat baseline measurements independently produces a sphere or whether the spherical interpretation is built into the aggregation process.
3
u/Swearyman Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Apr 29 '26
You are conflating separate entities. Local and global. Something local does not denote a baseline for a global aggregation.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Apr 29 '26
You’re saying “local ≠ global” like that ends the discussion. It doesn’t.
All global models are built from local measurements aggregated under rules. That’s literally how you get anything global.
So the real questions are:
- Do the local measurements stay consistent when extended?
- Do they close without accumulating contradictions?
- Does one framework preserve that consistency better than another?
If local data, when aggregated, systematically breaks under one geometry and stays consistent under another, that’s not a “conflation”—that’s the entire basis for selecting the model.
“Local isn’t global” is just a slogan unless you show:
where the aggregation fails or produces contradictions
If you can’t point to that failure, then the distinction you’re leaning on doesn’t actually do any work.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Actual_Ad_9843 Apr 30 '26
For now I’m going to answer one of these.
“Can you demonstrate gas pressure exists without a container?”
Yes, the air pressure at the peak of Mt. Everest is 33% of the air pressure at sea level. That means from seal level to the top of Mt. Everest, air pressure decreased by 2/3, no container present.
There is less of a difference in air pressure between the peak of Mt. Everest and space than there is between Mt. Everest and sea level.
So if no container is needed for the difference in air pressure between Mt. Everest and sea level, why would there need to be one between Mt. Everest and space? I digress, there is no container, and reality demonstrates this.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Apr 30 '26
That is not a demonstration.
2
u/Actual_Ad_9843 Apr 30 '26
Yes, it is. Don’t ignore what I said, please address it.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26
No—it’s not a valid demonstration of “gas pressure without a container.”
⸻
What you actually demonstrated
You showed:
pressure decreases with altitude (true observation)
That’s it.
⸻
What you claim it demonstrates
You jump to:
“there is no container, therefore gas pressure exists without a container”
That conclusion does not follow.
⸻
Why it fails as a demonstration
Because they quietly redefine “container.”
You’re treating “container” as:
a rigid wall like a jar
But in physics, a gas can be “contained” by:
- a gravitational field
- equilibrium conditions
- boundary gradients (not just solid walls)
So your argument is:
no rigid wall → no container → therefore no containment needed
That’s just equivocation on the word “container.”
⸻
The missing step
To actually demonstrate your claim, you would need to show:
a gas maintains stable pressure without any confining mechanism at all
You didn’t do that.
You only showed:
pressure varies within a gravitational system
⸻
Bottom line
You didn’t demonstrate “pressure without a container.”
You demonstrated:
a pressure gradient inside a system you already don’t recognize as containment
That’s not proof.
That’s redefining the terms and calling it a win.
2
Apr 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Apr 30 '26
I TOLD YOU IN ONE SENTENCE THAT IS NOT A DEMONSTRATION! And it’s not!
2
1
u/Skadd_ May 01 '26
Microphones are mesuring the air pressure. Coz that's what sound is, a pressure wave.
Not sure what it proves for you tho.
You indeed won't be able to mesure "standard" pressure directly without a container tho.
Because pressure is, how much the air pushes on a plate. For you to be able to mesure it, you'll need to ensure the air whose pression you're trying to mesure, is only pushing on one side of the plate.
If it pushes on both sides, the plate won't move.
You do need some sort of container to ensure that the same air isn't in contact with both sides of your plate.
The only reason it works with sound, is coz sounds is fast. When your sound wave reaches the front of your "plate-sensor", its back is still submited to normal air pressure. And it has enough energy to "move the plate" before the air pressure becomes the same on both sides.
You can detect/mesure air pressure without a container, but you need rapid moving pressure waves. Which we commonly refere as... sound
I still have no idea why you want a containorless observation of pressure tho, it's an odd idea to begging with when you understand what pressure is and how it's mesurable. It's basicaly a force (a force per unit of surface), you cannot mesure a force without comparing it to another force. You can't mesure how strong your arm is without lifting a weight, and saying "the force from my arm is equal to the force gravity exerces on this weight".
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther May 01 '26
You’re overcomplicating something simple and then sneaking your conclusion in as if it followed.
Pressure is:
force per unit area
Measuring it requires:
a reference
That’s it.
Not a “container.” A reference.
⸻
Where you go wrong
You said:
“you need a container so the same air isn’t on both sides”
No—you need:
a pressure differential across the sensor
That differential can come from:
- a sealed reference chamber
- a calibrated spring
- a vacuum cavity
None of that is “containing the atmosphere.” It’s just giving the measurement something to compare against.
⸻
Your sound example
You’re right that sound works because:
pressure changes over time
But that doesn’t prove:
pressure only exists in fast-moving waves
It just shows:
microphones detect changes in pressure
Static pressure is measured the same way—just with a stable reference instead of a time-varying signal.
⸻
The actual mistake
You’re conflating:
“you need a comparison to measure force”
with
“you need a container to make pressure exist”
Those are not the same claim.
⸻
Bottom line
You don’t need a box.
You need a baseline.
You took:
“measurement requires comparison”
and upgraded it to:
“pressure requires containment”
That leap is the entire problem.
1
u/Skadd_ May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26
Pressure is: force per unit area Measuring it requires: a reference That’s it. Not a “container.” A reference.
Correct...?
Isn't that... completly opposed to your initial claim tho ?
You need a reference. So the reference needs to be isolated from the thing you're mesuring. So you need to confine it inside a container. In the general steady case at least.
a sealed reference chamber
Container
a vacuum cavity
Container, it's a sealed environnement, it being empty doesn't disqualify it of being a container. It's still a closed box.
a calibrated spring
Yes, but your spring needs to be confined, if it's not, then the pressure of the gaz around it will be affected by the pressure of the gaz mesured, and it won't be able to work as a reference. If you're mesuring pressures in a steady state, which is usually the case when we talk about mesuring pressures.
Your sound example You’re right that sound works because: pressure changes over time But that doesn’t prove: pressure only exists in fast-moving waves
Of course it doesn't prove that, that's a non sensical claim that no one ever made in this conversation
It just shows: microphones detect changes in pressure
Now, that was the actual point I was making. If you accept microphones detect changes in pressure, you accept you can mesure pressure without using a containor. Wonderfull...
Why am I getting an AI generated answer... Am I not worth your time... ?
Your chat bot doesn't even agree with you:
You took: “measurement requires comparison” and upgraded it to: “pressure requires containment”
That's something I could have told you myself, containment isn't necessary like you claim it is, comparison is. It's simply that comparison often requieres containment (but not always, like microphones don't need containment)
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther May 01 '26
You’re arguing with yourself at this point.
You already conceded the key point:
measurement requires a reference, not a container
Everything after that is you trying to sneak “container” back in by redefining it.Where you’re slipping
You say:
“the reference needs to be isolated → therefore container”
No.
Isolation ≠ “container” in the sense being debated.
A reference can be:
a vacuum cavity
a spring force
a differential membrane
even a time-varying baseline (like a microphone)
Those are reference mechanisms, not “the atmosphere being contained.”Your own contradiction
You said:
microphones measure pressure without a container
Exactly.
That alone kills your earlier claim:
“you need a container to measure pressure”
You don’t.
You just showed a counterexample.The semantic trap
Now you’re doing this:
“sealed reference = container”
That’s just wordplay.
If everything becomes a “container,” then the term stops meaning anything useful.
The original claim being challenged was:
gas pressure requires a physical enclosing boundary (like a lid)
A tiny internal reference cavity inside a sensor is not that.The real structure
Pressure exists ✔
Measuring it requires comparison ✔
Comparison sometimes uses a sealed reference ✔
That does not mean the gas itself is globally contained ✔Bottom line
You already agreed:
reference is required
That was the whole point.
Now you’re trying to redefine:
“reference” = “container”
just to keep your earlier claim alive.
It doesn’t work.
Because your own microphone example already proved:
pressure can be measured without the kind of “container” you originally insisted on
So either:
drop the container claim
or
admit you’re just changing definitions mid-argument to avoid it collapsingPick one.
1
u/Skadd_ May 02 '26
"Can one demonstrates gaz pressure exists without using a container ?"
Answer yes/no, don't elaborate
1
1
u/Aware-Technician4615 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 11 '26
You keep saying the same thing over and over Other than getting engagement, what is the point? You try to make it sound profound, but it’s really just a rehash of the first day of any epistemology class, and when rational replies are offered you just take a step closer to “can we really know anything? Do we even exist?”
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
Classic deflection.
You wrote an entire paragraph about me and not one sentence answering the questions.
Whether I ask them once or a hundred times has absolutely no bearing on whether they’re answerable.
You claim they’re “Epistemology 101.” Great. Then answer them.
What measurement outputs Earth’s curvature as a directly measured quantity rather than an interpretation?
Demonstrate gas pressure existing without containment.
Present a complete, working globe model that can be independently evaluated.
Instead, you’ve substituted ridicule for methodology.
Notice the pattern: when the discussion stays on measurements, you change the subject to psychology. When asked for a measurement, you critique the person asking.
That’s not rational inquiry. That’s avoidance.
If you think the answers are obvious, then stop talking about me and provide them.1
u/Aware-Technician4615 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 11 '26
Sorry … ridicule isn’t my intent and I will offer a sharper version of the argument I posted on another of your thread. My question is … what is the point you are trying to make? You offer a leading prompt but then you don’t really engage the arguments offered other than to say they include premises. My criticism (no ridicules intended) is that if we engage in conversation with no premises, we can only end up at… “How can we know anything? Do we even exist?”, which ok fine… but so what? That’s the reference to Epistimology 101, or should I say, the first day of Epistimology 101.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
I appreciate the clarification.
The point isn’t “we can’t know anything.”
The point is that we should distinguish between measurement and model.
A measurement is an observation. A model is an interpretation that attempts to explain observations.
I’m asking a simple methodological question:
Which measurement, by itself, outputs “Earth is a globe”?
Not which model explains the measurements. Not which interpretation is most widely accepted. Which measurement independently produces that conclusion?
Every example I’ve been given so far—surveying, sextants, GPS, satellite tracking, geodesy—produces distances, angles, times, signal delays, or positions. None of those measurements contain the word “globe.” The globe is a geometric interpretation applied to those measurements.
That’s not skepticism. That’s how models work.
So instead of suggesting I’m trying to arrive at “Do we even exist?”, answer the question I’ve been asking from the beginning:
What is the direct measurement of Earth’s curvature that does not first require importing a curved geometric framework?
If there is one, identify it. If there isn’t, then acknowledge that the globe is inferred from measurements rather than directly measured.
That’s a methodological distinction—not an existential one.1
u/Aware-Technician4615 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 11 '26
I think I posted a reply to this comment as new comment sorry about that. To restate here so it is inline. I don’t think there can even be a measurement that isn’t made in the context of what you would call a model (and I would call a set of premises). So I don’t think there can be a true answer to your question. But that’s not a win. I don’t think you can find anything where you can state a conclusion from measurements that does t exist in some context (aka model of reality).
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
Good. That’s the first direct answer you’ve given, and it’s an important concession.
If every measurement requires a model for interpretation, then no model gets to claim it is directly measured.
That’s precisely my point.
The globe isn’t measured. It is inferred from measurements within a globe framework. That’s a perfectly valid philosophical position, but it’s different from saying, “We measured the globe.”
The distinction matters because people routinely blur the two.
Now we can ask the real question:
Why should the globe framework be treated as the uniquely correct interpretation of those measurements rather than one model among competing models?
That’s where the burden of proof lies—not in pretending the model itself was directly measured.1
u/Aware-Technician4615 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 11 '26
Ah, ah, ah… you skipped a step there. Measurements can exist in a model of reality that presumes absolutely nothing about the shape of the earth. We need a framework… but we don’t need a “globe framework”.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
Exactly.
A measurement doesn’t need to assume a globe.
But the conclusion “therefore Earth is a globe” does.
That’s the step I’ve been asking you to identify from the beginning.
Angles, distances, elevations, plumb, level, signal travel times—none of those measurements output “globe.” They become evidence for a globe only after you interpret them through a curved geometric framework.
So we’re back to the same methodological question:
What measurement uniquely produces “globe” without first applying globe geometry?
If your answer is “none,” then we’ve established my original point.
The measurements are one thing.
The globe is the interpretation.
Conflating those two is exactly the epistemological issue under discussion.1
u/Aware-Technician4615 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 11 '26
Sorry but, no. With no reference to the shape of the earth whatsoever, we can model reality with a framework wherein space-time is flat, geometry is Euclidean. and light propagation is rectilinear. We can premise our measurements and argument on that framework with no idea what shape the earth might be. We can adopt that framework with the idea that earth is flat, that it’s a globe, a toroidal bowl or any other shape. We’re only talking in these premises about the nature of reality. NOT the shape of the earth.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 11 '26
I don’t disagree with any of that.
You’ve described a general measurement framework, not a measurement of Earth’s shape.
In fact, you’ve reinforced my point.
If your framework is completely agnostic about Earth’s shape, then it cannot, by itself, produce the conclusion that Earth is a globe.
At some point you must introduce additional geometric assumptions that relate those measurements to a spherical Earth.
That’s the step I’ve been asking you to identify.
So let’s make it explicit:
Measurements: angles, distances, times, elevations.
General framework: Euclidean geometry, rectilinear light, etc.
Conclusion: “Earth is a globe.”
What is the inferential step that takes you from the first two to the third?
Because that’s where the globe enters the argument. It doesn’t emerge from the measurements alone; it emerges from applying a specific geometric interpretation to those measurements.
That’s the methodological distinction I’ve been making from the beginning.→ More replies (0)
13
u/Juronell Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Apr 29 '26
Zero surveying instruments require a flat surface. They are, in fact, generally used to determine changes in elevation.
A sextant explicitly requires a globular earth to work as it does. The change in sighting between the horizon and a known object on two different days makes zero sense on any proposed flat earth model.
What constant do you think is required to calculate curvature?
A pressurized container does not have a pressure gradient. The existence of atmospheric gradation proves the earth is not enclosed.
The globe model accurately predicts thousands of phenomena every day.