Bro you should call me... This footage is actually NOT evidence of concave water, in the manner we believe. These P900's are NOT all calibrated equally or correctly. Jenna Fredo (silly flerf) and i proved it. Her P900 is absolutely different from my P900, therefore disproving the validity of the auto~leveling feature. We didn't actually debunk concave water. We disproved the notion that all P900's auto~ levelers are the same and accurate. The footage of Lake St. Clair is actually way better evidence of the concavity of water. Nevertheless, thank you for doing this work, and for sharing the footage. 🙏
Nice name...what degree curve upwards did u get and or what degree upwards would one expect overall per km? Thats walk one km slope...then another...same rate...if u can answer this then we can progress...
I was thinking this exact thing. How can we be sure that the leveler is as accurate as it needs to be. If someone were to check their leveler or construct one that was extra sensitive. Maybe this experiment will work.
@@unshapingtheearth7916 if ulysses murrow, rowbothams assistant, measured 5.75cm curve up in a North/south facing direction, then this roughly 1/3 the curve we would all expect. This inturn support my theory of a prolate 0 earth 🏉🕳🍛👁 but upright. 44444.44km polar and 33333.33km equator. Prol8...8 not ♾
Maybe it's because I listened at 2x, but you're reasoning doesn't make sense to me with justifying how those videos don't offer concave proof. I don't understand why you're saying the size of the vessels matter at all. As far as I'm concerned the only observation that matters is the level at which the boats' hulls break the water. To me Zenith's videos provide clear evidence of concavity, which is why I've linked to them so many times when commenting.
@@Andy_Holmes yo...gazza711 here...this footage is above water. And without us doing the experiment...ur just repeating non claims....i ask peole what degree curve they are expecting...they have no idea 🤔...this in turn casts doubt and as well no proof of a sphere...ur comment is disturbing as clearly no one has done this experiment across the whole horizon...stand at the sea...hopefully there's object of reference from.left to right. The centre distance will appear different to the sides...why would that be?
The distance an object is from you determines its angular size. Simply put a cruise ship up close is gigantic, but many miles away it is small. These are things of perspective to keep in mind. The large boat in the distance is still bigger than the small boats up close. Therefore the boats appear under the large ship. If you dont understand what i am saying I recommend watching again. I doubt explaining in a comment will change anything
Bro you should call me...
This footage is actually NOT evidence of concave water, in the manner we believe.
These P900's are NOT all calibrated equally or correctly.
Jenna Fredo (silly flerf) and i proved it.
Her P900 is absolutely different from my P900, therefore disproving the validity of the auto~leveling feature.
We didn't actually debunk concave water. We disproved the notion that all P900's auto~ levelers are the same and accurate.
The footage of Lake St. Clair is actually way better evidence of the concavity of water.
Nevertheless, thank you for doing this work, and for sharing the footage.
🙏
Nice name...what degree curve upwards did u get and or what degree upwards would one expect overall per km? Thats walk one km slope...then another...same rate...if u can answer this then we can progress...
@@therealm232
I owe you answers?
🤣🤣🤣
Get fucT
@@FLATPOOL engwish?
I was thinking this exact thing. How can we be sure that the leveler is as accurate as it needs to be. If someone were to check their leveler or construct one that was extra sensitive. Maybe this experiment will work.
@@unshapingtheearth7916 if ulysses murrow, rowbothams assistant, measured 5.75cm curve up in a North/south facing direction, then this roughly 1/3 the curve we would all expect. This inturn support my theory of a prolate 0 earth 🏉🕳🍛👁 but upright. 44444.44km polar and 33333.33km equator. Prol8...8 not ♾
Maybe it's because I listened at 2x, but you're reasoning doesn't make sense to me with justifying how those videos don't offer concave proof. I don't understand why you're saying the size of the vessels matter at all. As far as I'm concerned the only observation that matters is the level at which the boats' hulls break the water. To me Zenith's videos provide clear evidence of concavity, which is why I've linked to them so many times when commenting.
In addition the distances alone at which the boats can be seen from that elevation is enough evidence to disprove convexity.
@@Andy_Holmes yo...gazza711 here...this footage is above water. And without us doing the experiment...ur just repeating non claims....i ask peole what degree curve they are expecting...they have no idea 🤔...this in turn casts doubt and as well no proof of a sphere...ur comment is disturbing as clearly no one has done this experiment across the whole horizon...stand at the sea...hopefully there's object of reference from.left to right. The centre distance will appear different to the sides...why would that be?
The distance an object is from you determines its angular size. Simply put a cruise ship up close is gigantic, but many miles away it is small. These are things of perspective to keep in mind. The large boat in the distance is still bigger than the small boats up close. Therefore the boats appear under the large ship. If you dont understand what i am saying I recommend watching again. I doubt explaining in a comment will change anything
@@unshapingtheearth7916 But even a small boat in the distance would appear above a larger boat that's closer, at least where the hull meets the water.
@@Andy_Holmes show me then. Ive never seen that