Flat Earth

[Dinki]

How as an individual can I know if the Earth is a sphere or a flat disc? What experiment can I do that doesn't involve trusting information from a 3rd party that would prove what the geometry really is?

Go to a church, ask them what they believe.  The truth is usually the opposite.

Hey! Churches are not that bad The bible is scientifically accurate in more places than one.

[colombuszka]

Earth is a triangle, confirmed:

[notbatman]

To commemorate the one year anniversary of this thread I've crafted the following depiction of our flat earth:

[notbatman]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise.  Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity.  Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space).  Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure.  So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are.  Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity.  In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't.

It will stop rising when the density of the atmosphere reaches that of the helium in the balloon. We haven't even reached this mythical vacuum space you talk about before it stops that is if it hasn't already popped which is unlikely. Then you invoke the magical force of gravity but why? This unpoppable balloon has stopped rising due to the atmosphere it's displaced being the same density as the helium. Then you go on to mention the fantasy of interstellar space; this isn't even relevant. As for the apple it falls because it's denser than air and again you invoke the magical force of gravity for no reason.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty yet your statements here show that you're an outright intellectual fraud.

PSo, it's all density, eh?

Here's a question for you then, and I'll even play by your rules:  In simulated anti-gravitational environments, such as when an airplane dips at a given speed and angle such that everything is floating around (actually, they're just in free-fall) in an air-filled chamber -- you know, just like the videos you almost surely believe NASA creates to fool us into believing that astronauts are in outer space -- how do you explain that everything in the plane is *floating*?  In other words, if both the air and all objects in the air-filled chamber are descending at the same speed relative to each other, why doesn't density separate the more-dense objects (like people) from the air in the chamber?

The problem for you is that hydrostatic pressure decreases in weightless (NOT sparce)  environments.  If it didn't, then in the descending airplane that causes all things inside it to free-fall, all of the objects that are more dense than the air would fall to the floor of the plane, even in free-fall conditions.

1) Mass + gravity --> weight --> hydrostatic pressure --> balloons rise, apples fall
2).Mass + no gravity --> weightlessness --> no hydrostatic pressure --> balloons and apples behave similarly
3) Density = mass/volume.  That's it.  Density is dependent upon mass, but is independent of weight which is integral to hydrostatic pressure.  We can see this from free-fall airplanes in which all objects are weightless in their environment; it doesn't matter how much mass or density the objects have, they all have no weight.  This gives us two scenarios to consider -- we see how objects behave in weightless environments (such as free-fall planes), and also in weighted environments (such as on Earth's surface).  Does density explain both scenarios? No. What does? Gravity.

By the way, the formula for weight is w=mg where m=mass and g=Freefall acceleration of gravity.  In a freefall airplane, g=0, so w=0.

So you're saying a helium balloon will float around in the middle of the vomit comet ("artificial zero-gravity" airplane ride) with the apple?

To answer your question the force caused by the plane dropping counters the force due to the apples density thereby causing it to float. A balloon on the other hand should rise up faster than normal due to the additional force.

Also, NASA does fake all their space walks in their fake space. You can see air bubbles rising, scuba tanks in the background and various items floating up in their "official" videos. It's not a matter of "belief" as you put it.

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density.  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.





EDIT:

After viewing the behavior of a helium balloon in a moving vehicle, I see you're probably correct about the balloon losing its buoyancy in the vomit comet in the same way a bowling ball loses its depression.

FYI though, you're still living in a complete fantasy world in regards to the remainder of you're misguided arguments in regards to your globalist prerogative.

[losoya]

i think the earth is round, because the wind cannot move in a flath earth, but that is just my view 

[notbatman]

i think the earth is round, because the wind cannot move in a flath earth, but that is just my view 

Proof of wind on a flat surface:



 

[richjohn]

well, if you are doubting what the shape of the world is, it is sphere of course as there are many proofs. the idea of a flat disc earth is in an ancient idea but since there is a development of knowledge, people learned not only based on their observation and feeling but they go out in space just to prove that the earth is round.

[losoya]

i think the earth is round, because the wind cannot move in a flath earth, but that is just my view 

Proof of wind on a flat surface:



 

haha but that is not what i meant, but like tornados and stuff like that.

tornados rotate and the earth rotates with it, and stuff like that

[notbatman]

i think the earth is round, because the wind cannot move in a flath earth, but that is just my view  

Proof of wind on a flat surface:



 

haha but that is not what i meant, but like tornados and stuff like that.

tornados rotate and the earth rotates with it, and stuff like that

The Sun is small and orbits close to the surface creating a moving zone of high pressure as day passes to night. The moving displacement of atmosphere creates vortices.

[exemplaar]

well, if you are doubting what the shape of the world is, it is sphere of course as there are many proofs. the idea of a flat disc earth is in an ancient idea but since there is a development of knowledge, people learned not only based on their observation and feeling but they go out in space just to prove that the earth is round.

There is no proof of globe, period. The Polaris star, no curve, no moonlandings, no mars rover, no ISS, nothing is orbiting earth, there are no satellites up there, none, Challenger had no victims(they are all still alive), not one astronaut claims they walked on the moon, no gravity, water is always level, the earth is not spinning, the small sun-electric lght(not fusion furnace) is calculated scientifically to be at around 3000-4000 miles up (use three countries and calculate degree of sun at same time), Man has not gone any deeper than 12.000m into the earth Kula superdeep borehole. At what exact altitude does gravity cease to exist, exactly? Not one footage in existence of an astroNOT opening and leaving a pod. "Spacewalks" are done with greenscreens/watertanks (hollywood production). ACTORnauts now also have snorkels on their spacesuits. The globe is invention of the wicked one, it has never been proven and people all over the world are waking up to this lie of a spinning globe throughout a vastness of the fake universe.
If you use the scientific method, you will discover the earth is NOT a globe.

You can start today here for example:
NASA Thinks Vacuums Suck...research the Flat Earth! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8VgLhy8stY

[losoya]

well, if you are doubting what the shape of the world is, it is sphere of course as there are many proofs. the idea of a flat disc earth is in an ancient idea but since there is a development of knowledge, people learned not only based on their observation and feeling but they go out in space just to prove that the earth is round.

Why not just go measure it, stop speculating, go and measure it.

I bet its not flat, but i need science proof first!

[the joint]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise.  Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity.  Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space).  Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure.  So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are.  Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity.  In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't.

It will stop rising when the density of the atmosphere reaches that of the helium in the balloon. We haven't even reached this mythical vacuum space you talk about before it stops that is if it hasn't already popped which is unlikely. Then you invoke the magical force of gravity but why? This unpoppable balloon has stopped rising due to the atmosphere it's displaced being the same density as the helium. Then you go on to mention the fantasy of interstellar space; this isn't even relevant. As for the apple it falls because it's denser than air and again you invoke the magical force of gravity for no reason.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty yet your statements here show that you're an outright intellectual fraud.

PSo, it's all density, eh?

Here's a question for you then, and I'll even play by your rules:  In simulated anti-gravitational environments, such as when an airplane dips at a given speed and angle such that everything is floating around (actually, they're just in free-fall) in an air-filled chamber -- you know, just like the videos you almost surely believe NASA creates to fool us into believing that astronauts are in outer space -- how do you explain that everything in the plane is *floating*?  In other words, if both the air and all objects in the air-filled chamber are descending at the same speed relative to each other, why doesn't density separate the more-dense objects (like people) from the air in the chamber?

The problem for you is that hydrostatic pressure decreases in weightless (NOT sparce)  environments.  If it didn't, then in the descending airplane that causes all things inside it to free-fall, all of the objects that are more dense than the air would fall to the floor of the plane, even in free-fall conditions.

1) Mass + gravity --> weight --> hydrostatic pressure --> balloons rise, apples fall
2).Mass + no gravity --> weightlessness --> no hydrostatic pressure --> balloons and apples behave similarly
3) Density = mass/volume.  That's it.  Density is dependent upon mass, but is independent of weight which is integral to hydrostatic pressure.  We can see this from free-fall airplanes in which all objects are weightless in their environment; it doesn't matter how much mass or density the objects have, they all have no weight.  This gives us two scenarios to consider -- we see how objects behave in weightless environments (such as free-fall planes), and also in weighted environments (such as on Earth's surface).  Does density explain both scenarios? No. What does? Gravity.

By the way, the formula for weight is w=mg where m=mass and g=Freefall acceleration of gravity.  In a freefall airplane, g=0, so w=0.

So you're saying a helium balloon will float around in the middle of the vomit comet ("artificial zero-gravity" airplane ride) with the apple?

To answer your question the force caused by the plane dropping counters the force due to the apples density thereby causing it to float. A balloon on the other hand should rise up faster than normal due to the additional force.

Also, NASA does fake all their space walks in their fake space. You can see air bubbles rising, scuba tanks in the background and various items floating up in their "official" videos. It's not a matter of "belief" as you put it.

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density.  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.





EDIT:

After viewing the behavior of a helium balloon in a moving vehicle, I see you're probably correct about the balloon losing its buoyancy in the vomit comet in the same way a bowling ball loses its depression.

FYI though, you're still living in a complete fantasy world in regards to the remainder of you're misguided arguments in regards to your globalist prerogative.

Then what's your formula for weight that 1) doesn't involve g, and that 2) works in a vomit comet, on the ground, and in any other environment?

[notbatman]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise.  Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity.  Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space).  Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure.  So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are.  Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity.  In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't.

It will stop rising when the density of the atmosphere reaches that of the helium in the balloon. We haven't even reached this mythical vacuum space you talk about before it stops that is if it hasn't already popped which is unlikely. Then you invoke the magical force of gravity but why? This unpoppable balloon has stopped rising due to the atmosphere it's displaced being the same density as the helium. Then you go on to mention the fantasy of interstellar space; this isn't even relevant. As for the apple it falls because it's denser than air and again you invoke the magical force of gravity for no reason.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty yet your statements here show that you're an outright intellectual fraud.

PSo, it's all density, eh?

Here's a question for you then, and I'll even play by your rules:  In simulated anti-gravitational environments, such as when an airplane dips at a given speed and angle such that everything is floating around (actually, they're just in free-fall) in an air-filled chamber -- you know, just like the videos you almost surely believe NASA creates to fool us into believing that astronauts are in outer space -- how do you explain that everything in the plane is *floating*?  In other words, if both the air and all objects in the air-filled chamber are descending at the same speed relative to each other, why doesn't density separate the more-dense objects (like people) from the air in the chamber?

The problem for you is that hydrostatic pressure decreases in weightless (NOT sparce)  environments.  If it didn't, then in the descending airplane that causes all things inside it to free-fall, all of the objects that are more dense than the air would fall to the floor of the plane, even in free-fall conditions.

1) Mass + gravity --> weight --> hydrostatic pressure --> balloons rise, apples fall
2).Mass + no gravity --> weightlessness --> no hydrostatic pressure --> balloons and apples behave similarly
3) Density = mass/volume.  That's it.  Density is dependent upon mass, but is independent of weight which is integral to hydrostatic pressure.  We can see this from free-fall airplanes in which all objects are weightless in their environment; it doesn't matter how much mass or density the objects have, they all have no weight.  This gives us two scenarios to consider -- we see how objects behave in weightless environments (such as free-fall planes), and also in weighted environments (such as on Earth's surface).  Does density explain both scenarios? No. What does? Gravity.

By the way, the formula for weight is w=mg where m=mass and g=Freefall acceleration of gravity.  In a freefall airplane, g=0, so w=0.

So you're saying a helium balloon will float around in the middle of the vomit comet ("artificial zero-gravity" airplane ride) with the apple?

To answer your question the force caused by the plane dropping counters the force due to the apples density thereby causing it to float. A balloon on the other hand should rise up faster than normal due to the additional force.

Also, NASA does fake all their space walks in their fake space. You can see air bubbles rising, scuba tanks in the background and various items floating up in their "official" videos. It's not a matter of "belief" as you put it.

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density.  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.





EDIT:

After viewing the behavior of a helium balloon in a moving vehicle, I see you're probably correct about the balloon losing its buoyancy in the vomit comet in the same way a bowling ball loses its depression.

FYI though, you're still living in a complete fantasy world in regards to the remainder of you're misguided arguments in regards to your globalist prerogative.

Then what's your formula for weight that 1) doesn't involve g, and that 2) works in a vomit comet, on the ground, and in any other environment?

Answering that sounds like a whole lot work, can't say I feel motivated or have an immediate need for such a formula.

[the joint]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise.  Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity.  Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space).  Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure.  So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are.  Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity.  In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't.

It will stop rising when the density of the atmosphere reaches that of the helium in the balloon. We haven't even reached this mythical vacuum space you talk about before it stops that is if it hasn't already popped which is unlikely. Then you invoke the magical force of gravity but why? This unpoppable balloon has stopped rising due to the atmosphere it's displaced being the same density as the helium. Then you go on to mention the fantasy of interstellar space; this isn't even relevant. As for the apple it falls because it's denser than air and again you invoke the magical force of gravity for no reason.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty yet your statements here show that you're an outright intellectual fraud.

PSo, it's all density, eh?

Here's a question for you then, and I'll even play by your rules:  In simulated anti-gravitational environments, such as when an airplane dips at a given speed and angle such that everything is floating around (actually, they're just in free-fall) in an air-filled chamber -- you know, just like the videos you almost surely believe NASA creates to fool us into believing that astronauts are in outer space -- how do you explain that everything in the plane is *floating*?  In other words, if both the air and all objects in the air-filled chamber are descending at the same speed relative to each other, why doesn't density separate the more-dense objects (like people) from the air in the chamber?

The problem for you is that hydrostatic pressure decreases in weightless (NOT sparce)  environments.  If it didn't, then in the descending airplane that causes all things inside it to free-fall, all of the objects that are more dense than the air would fall to the floor of the plane, even in free-fall conditions.

1) Mass + gravity --> weight --> hydrostatic pressure --> balloons rise, apples fall
2).Mass + no gravity --> weightlessness --> no hydrostatic pressure --> balloons and apples behave similarly
3) Density = mass/volume.  That's it.  Density is dependent upon mass, but is independent of weight which is integral to hydrostatic pressure.  We can see this from free-fall airplanes in which all objects are weightless in their environment; it doesn't matter how much mass or density the objects have, they all have no weight.  This gives us two scenarios to consider -- we see how objects behave in weightless environments (such as free-fall planes), and also in weighted environments (such as on Earth's surface).  Does density explain both scenarios? No. What does? Gravity.

By the way, the formula for weight is w=mg where m=mass and g=Freefall acceleration of gravity.  In a freefall airplane, g=0, so w=0.

So you're saying a helium balloon will float around in the middle of the vomit comet ("artificial zero-gravity" airplane ride) with the apple?

To answer your question the force caused by the plane dropping counters the force due to the apples density thereby causing it to float. A balloon on the other hand should rise up faster than normal due to the additional force.

Also, NASA does fake all their space walks in their fake space. You can see air bubbles rising, scuba tanks in the background and various items floating up in their "official" videos. It's not a matter of "belief" as you put it.

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density.  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.





EDIT:

After viewing the behavior of a helium balloon in a moving vehicle, I see you're probably correct about the balloon losing its buoyancy in the vomit comet in the same way a bowling ball loses its depression.

FYI though, you're still living in a complete fantasy world in regards to the remainder of you're misguided arguments in regards to your globalist prerogative.

Then what's your formula for weight that 1) doesn't involve g, and that 2) works in a vomit comet, on the ground, and in any other environment?

Answering that sounds like a whole lot work, can't say I feel motivated or have an immediate need for such a formula.

Well, it's immediately necessary if you think the earth is flat.  A flat earth doesn't work with gravity.  But, weight is determined by a formula that takes the gravitational rate of acceleration into account, i.e. w=mg.  This formula works perfectly in any environment to determine an object's weight.  If you think the earth is flat, you need to do away with gravity entirely, which means you need a new formula for weight that doesn't involve g.  I know you don't have one, which means you can't explain the weight of (for example) a balloon in various environments.

But, you truly don't need another formula for weight because the one we have works perfectly.  It's a formula that accounts for gravity, and with gravity there is no flat earth.

[shanerc563]

You will need some equipment, but I think I have an experiment that will work for you.  First you need (2) 4' levels.  You need to be very precise about doing this or you results will fail.  You also need a board, drill w/ 1/8" bit and 2 lazers which will shoot at least 1,000 feet.  Drill 1/32nd holes in a line from top to bottom of that board.  Make these holes 1/8" apart.  Now, set the board standing up, plumb so that it is straight.  Next walk 500' in each direction, left and right, from the board. At the 500 foot mark, take the 4' level and set it up level to the earth at a certain number of feet above sea level.  This number of feet above sea level could be what even number you want, but both boards have to be set at the same level.  In the middle of the level, set the lazer in the middle of the level pointing directly down the level at the board.  Do this with both boards.  If you look from a distance, the levels will look like they would meet if they were 500 foot levels.  When you go to look at the board, you will notice the lazers on each side of the board will be about 1/4" off from one another.  This will prove there is the curve in the earth.

[Gleb Gamow]

You will need some equipment, but I think I have an experiment that will work for you.  First you need (2) 4' levels.  You need to be very precise about doing this or you results will fail.  You also need a board, drill w/ 1/8" bit and 2 lazers which will shoot at least 1,000 feet.  Drill 1/32nd holes in a line from top to bottom of that board.  Make these holes 1/8" apart.  Now, set the board standing up, plumb so that it is straight.  Next walk 500' in each direction, left and right, from the board. At the 500 foot mark, take the 4' level and set it up level to the earth at a certain number of feet above sea level.  This number of feet above sea level could be what even number you want, but both boards have to be set at the same level.  In the middle of the level, set the lazer in the middle of the level pointing directly down the level at the board.  Do this with both boards.  If you look from a distance, the levels will look like they would meet if they were 500 foot levels.  When you go to look at the board, you will notice the lazers on each side of the board will be about 1/4" off from one another.  This will prove there is the curve in the earth.

Now, do the exact same experiment with perspective levels. 

[hangar18]

The tides...tell me how are the tides generated on a Flat Earth?

[shanerc563]

You will need some equipment, but I think I have an experiment that will work for you.  First you need (2) 4' levels.  You need to be very precise about doing this or you results will fail.  You also need a board, drill w/ 1/8" bit and 2 lazers which will shoot at least 1,000 feet.  Drill 1/32nd holes in a line from top to bottom of that board.  Make these holes 1/8" apart.  Now, set the board standing up, plumb so that it is straight.  Next walk 500' in each direction, left and right, from the board. At the 500 foot mark, take the 4' level and set it up level to the earth at a certain number of feet above sea level.  This number of feet above sea level could be what even number you want, but both boards have to be set at the same level.  In the middle of the level, set the lazer in the middle of the level pointing directly down the level at the board.  Do this with both boards.  If you look from a distance, the levels will look like they would meet if they were 500 foot levels.  When you go to look at the board, you will notice the lazers on each side of the board will be about 1/4" off from one another.  This will prove there is the curve in the earth.

Now, do the exact same experiment with perspective levels. 

No this just makes it to easy.  He asked for a way to prove it, so he is oblivious looking to some sort of work and if he is not, give him something to do anyway, for someone like this who needs proof after all they have access to, they do not need to be in the general population giving opinions!! (Joking)

[shanerc563]

The tides...tell me how are the tides generated on a Flat Earth?

You are correct, but he did not ask for proof, he asked for a way to prove it through some sort of experiment.  Also if the earth was flat, tides could be caused my many things, such as the gravitational pull of the moon, the rotation of the earth would still cause tides.  Just something to think about.

[notbatman]

The tides...tell me how are the tides generated on a Flat Earth?

You are correct, but he did not ask for proof, he asked for a way to prove it through some sort of experiment.  Also if the earth was flat, tides could be caused my many things, such as the gravitational pull of the moon, the rotation of the earth would still cause tides.  Just something to think about.

There's an established experiment that's been repeated and the results confirmed. The experiment involves two telescopes pointing at the same star. One telescope is filled with water to slow the speed of light. The result is that no adjustment to the angle of the "aquascope" is required to keep the target star in view and centered.

This experiment was first performed by George Biddell Airy in 1871 and proves without a reasonable doubt that the Earth is stationary and motionless; the stars orbit above.

So no, the Earth's rotation doesn't cause the tides; Earth doesn't rotate.

Reference:

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

Airy, G. B. (1871). "On the Supposed Alteration in the Amount of Astronomical Aberration of Light, Produced by the Passage of the Light through a Considerable Thickness of Refracting Medium"

George Biddell Airy

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1871 20, 35-39, published 1
January 1871
 

http://rspl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/20/130-138/35.full.pdf