Flat Earthers

[Nukehasslefan]

So you were physically in Rome to watch the game?

Nope.

 

[DPTT]

Nope.

So how do you know the score then?

 

[DaveH]

So if you scattered people randomly around the earth and they all faced north, they would all be looking towards the same point in the middle and essentially facing each other (though not able to see each other due to distance)?

If that is so, then logically if each person turned 180 degrees they would all be facing south and all have their backs to each other?

>>> Yep, basically.

So at night all those looking north would be looking at Polaris and Ursa Minor, only see if from different angles. This also matches a globe model.

However as all those looking south are essentially looking in completely different directions, they would all see a different thing in the night sky, straight ahead when facing due south. For example if two people were completely back to back (180 degrees apart), they both could not see the southern cross unless it was painted twice on the dome. But lets say it was, someone at 10 degrees would not see it straight ahead, it would be slightly to their right.

This is the same effect scaled up as standing in a football stadium. Scatter people around the centre circle and tell them to face the centre spot. They all see the same spot. Turn them 180 degrees and they all see different parts of the ground straight ahead. Those looking at the north stand can't see the south stand. Those looking at the south east corner can see bits of both stands etc.

For the night sky, this does not match the most basic observational evidence, as due south is always the direction of the southern cross. It has been used for navigation for thousands of years.

Now if those people looking south were on the southern hemisphere of a globe, it suddenly works. They all see the southern cross, but from different angles, just like those in the north, facing north.

I wonder if that suggests something?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So how do you know the score then?

I watched the game on TV.

 

[Tees Exile]

You’ve learned the wrong science.

Go and tell Copernicus

 

[taipeisafc]

He's still a journalist.

No he is a physicist and astronomer who writes - big difference. Chairman Mao wrote a book and did plenty of talking was he a Journalist?

"A journalist is an individual trained to collect/gather information in form of text, audio or pictures, processes them to a news-worth form and disseminates it to the public. The act or process mainly done by the journalist is called journalism"

 

[DPTT]

I watched the game on TV.

But by your reasoning if you don’t physically observe something it can be questioned as bullshit
So why believe that what you watched was real?
Do you accept that what you observed was true, meaning years of scientific research etc allowed those images to be screened to your home

 

[payne]

But by your reasoning if you don’t physically observe something it can be questioned as bullshit
So why believe that what you watched was real?
Do you accept that what you observed was true, meaning years of scientific research etc allowed those images to be screened to your home

It's his opinion what he watched was real.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

>>> Yep, basically.

So at night all those looking north would be looking at Polaris and Ursa Minor, only see if from different angles. This also matches a globe model.

Nope.
You put too much emphasis on the strength of people's vision.

However as all those looking south are essentially looking in completely different directions, they would all see a different thing in the night sky, straight ahead when facing due south. For example if two people were completely back to back (180 degrees apart), they both could not see the southern cross unless it was painted twice on the dome. But lets say it was, someone at 10 degrees would not see it straight ahead, it would be slightly to their right.

It comes down to sight and position.

This is the same effect scaled up as standing in a football stadium. Scatter people around the centre circle and tell them to face the centre spot. They all see the same spot.

They are merely metres away on a football pitch, so no comparison.

Turn them 180 degrees and they all see different parts of the ground straight ahead.

Yep. I don't see any issue with that.

Those looking at the north stand can't see the south stand. Those looking at the south east corner can see bits of both stands etc.

Yep and this bears thinking about.

For the night sky, this does not match the most basic observational evidence, as due south is always the direction of the southern cross. It has been used for navigation for thousands of years.

Navigation of a circle using points of light is no issue.

Now if those people looking south were on the southern hemisphere of a globe, it suddenly works.

It only works because you believe it to work on the globe you go with..

They all see the southern cross, but from different angles, just like those in the north, facing north.

I wonder if that suggests something?

It suggests nothing.
It's all about what you believe your eyes are capable of seeing and the distance.

People are made to believe they see a near 1 million mile diameter sun and a 240,000 mile cement looking moon that just happens to be lit up like a beacon but shows a spotlight, almost beach like night time with moon men carry on.

We are told stars are trillions and trillions of miles away and we see them as they were 1 million years ago and what not.

I mean, how can I try to tell people to question it when they follow official lines and so called experts who have nothing more than telescopes and imaginations to dazzle people with their so called brilliance and baffle them with (what I believe) bull****.

No he is a physicist and astronomer who writes - big difference. Chairman Mao wrote a book and did plenty of talking was he a Journalist?

"A journalist is an individual trained to collect/gather information in form of text, audio or pictures, processes them to a news-worth form and disseminates it to the public. The act or process mainly done by the journalist is called journalism"

And you're absolutely welcome to that.
I just think he's a journalist who's learned the art of storytelling and done a certain amount of homework for the audience.

 

[payne]

Nope.
You put too much emphasis on the strength of people's vision.



It comes down to sight and position.



They are merely metres away on a football pitch, so no comparison.



Yep. I don't see any issue with that.



Yep and this bears thinking about.



Navigation of a circle using points of light is no issue.



It only works because you believe it to work on the globe you go with..



It suggests nothing.
It's all about what you believe your eyes are capable of seeing and the distance.

People are made to believe they see a near 1 million mile diameter sun and a 240,000 mile cement looking moon that just happens to be lit up like a beacon but shows a spotlight, almost beach like night time with moon men carry on.

We are told stars are trillions and trillions of miles away and we see them as they were 1 million years ago and what not.

I mean, how can I try to tell people to question it when they follow official lines and so called experts who have nothing more than telescopes and imaginations to dazzle people with their so called brilliance and baffle them with (what I believe) bull****.

And you're absolutely welcome to that.
I just think he's a journalist who's learned the art of storytelling and done a certain amount of homework for the audience.

I hope you find peace one day

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But by your reasoning if you don’t physically observe something it can be questioned as bullshit

f course.
If I thought it was to be questioned I would question it. However, I accept it because my focus was on the entertainment and the hope of winning.

So why believe that what you watched was real?

No reason not to believe it.

Do you accept that what you observed was true, meaning years of scientific research etc allowed those images to be screened to your home

Absolutely.
That's what I deem as real scientific advancement.

 

[parm]

That only effects part of the image? How does that work then?

As a general note I find with the conspiracy goons no matter how much evidence there is disproving their deranged theories there is never enough yet they don't seem to need any evidence at all to prove their theories are correct (or they say do your won research). Gravity being the classic one, scientist admits they don't know the exact mechanism of it working although there are a number of theories so conspiracy morons decide it doesn't exist and something else is at play. We have another one on here who reckons he has disproved Newtons law of motion with some MDF and a nail.

not sure but that river in picture looks like it its about 1/10th of the circumference of earth

 

[payne]

Nope.
You put too much emphasis on the strength of people's vision.



It comes down to sight and position.



They are merely metres away on a football pitch, so no comparison.



Yep. I don't see any issue with that.



Yep and this bears thinking about.



Navigation of a circle using points of light is no issue.



It only works because you believe it to work on the globe you go with..



It suggests nothing.
It's all about what you believe your eyes are capable of seeing and the distance.

People are made to believe they see a near 1 million mile diameter sun and a 240,000 mile cement looking moon that just happens to be lit up like a beacon but shows a spotlight, almost beach like night time with moon men carry on.

We are told stars are trillions and trillions of miles away and we see them as they were 1 million years ago and what not.

I mean, how can I try to tell people to question it when they follow official lines and so called experts who have nothing more than telescopes and imaginations to dazzle people with their so called brilliance and baffle them with (what I believe) bull****.

And you're absolutely welcome to that.
I just think he's a journalist who's learned the art of storytelling and done a certain amount of homework for the audience.

The people you follow are the ones who do homework for the audience mate

 

[DPTT]

f course.
If I thought it was to be questioned I would question it. However, I accept it because my focus was on the entertainment and the hope of winning.


No reason not to believe it.


Absolutely.
That's what I deem as real scientific advancement.

Mate you are having a laugh really aren’t ya
You cannot change your arguement to suit what you want to believe in man

 

[taipeisafc]

not sure but that river in picture looks like it its about 1/10th of the circumference of earth

You can only see a small portion of the earth - so the circumference is much bigger and the river (is it a river or something else I cannot really tell from the photo) will be a lot smaller than 1/10th I reckon.

And you're absolutely welcome to that.
I just think he's a journalist who's learned the art of storytelling and done a certain amount of homework for the audience.

No he isn't he is a Physicist - that is not even up for debate you clown.

 

[parm]

i think theres 2 reasons "they " lie about the nature of earth 1.to hide further lands/resources and 2 . to push the idea of big bang and the idea we are just one happy accident rather than a alternative , as with everything its about power and control

 

[The Truth]

I read one thing a while ago that they see themselves as a hero type and I can see a bit of that. If you think of most stories, they always involve someone who is that bit special. It might be a magical Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker or a human who is amazing like James Bond or Sherlock Holmes. They all follow the same idea. One person who can do or see things others can’t.

I love space, astronomy, astrophotography etc and I’m fairly knowledgeable about some stuff to do with it. Go on an astronomy forum and I’m way way down the rankings of knowledge or quality of images. I’m a long way from being something special and I can accept that.

Now look at the conspiracy types and how they word stuff. Look through the flat earth and more recently the covid ct threads. A lot of the time they don’t say anything at all but make suggestive threads or hint at something. What happens? Immediately one or more poster replies asking for more. In their head “I am the wise sage, look the follow me”. After a bit it is followed up by lines such as “oh I used to think like you, but now….”, that is self reinforcing of the hero image, while also putting others down. Very few points or explanations are made directly, it is all designed to get reactions but the sort of reactions that elevate that self-hero image. It keeps people coming back while also hiding the details leaves nothing to be attacked in return, i.e. nothing that can deflate that image.

”There is another agenda at play”. What does that mean? In itself nothing, so people ask back. That is usually followed up by other phrases like “gradual erosion of freedoms”, “you can’t see what is happening”. These lines of conversation go on but no point is made but everytime people respond with a question. It is all designed for that reaction. Now if I said “We are never going to be allowed more than 20 people in any pub”, loads would react. Big pubs, small pubs all the same. And is likely to be disproven within a year or even weeks. That makes me a pretty shit oracle, my ego deflated and the thread is short, the clear point has been discussed. Meanwhile the CT thread hits page 20 while people still try to figure out what the hell they are going on about.

If you watch the various CT threads unfold, you will see these patterns. I find it an odd mix of entertaining and fascinating.

Excellent post completely ignored by the conspiracy nuts I noticed.

 

[cosmicchris00]

Nobody's asking you to.
It can't be explained anyway so it's moot.

You must be logged on to see external links

In the same way that light is accepted,... you can see it but how does it actually work... or do you question the existence of that too

 

[payne]

i think theres 2 reasons "they " lie about the nature of earth 1.to hide further lands/resources and 2 . to push the idea of big bang and the idea we are just one happy accident rather than a alternative , as with everything its about power and control

Wow

 

[DaveH]

It only works because you believe it to work on the globe you go with..

It works because of basic maths and geometry. Belief has nothing to do with it.

I do see you completely avoided explaining how everyone facing south can all see the southern cross.