Flat Earthers

[Nukehasslefan]

"Everything we know about" includes Antarctica. Where is that on your dome?

Likely around the inner gradient.

How do explain the way the stars move at night, and the way the moon always faces towards the Earth no matter where on Earth you're standing, and how the path of eclipses across the world can be predicted by anyone at home using the globe model?

Reflections.
You're told the moon shows one face and an upside down face in Australia but never anywhere else on the supposed moon ball.
You're told it rotates opposite the rotation of earth and that's why you see the same face.
It supposedly rotates at 10 mph in vacuum.
If you shine a torch with a picture on it on a ceiling and move that torch over the ceiling to the other side, you see it upside down but that's just too simple for people.

It's a ball of luminous rock that just happens to rotate in perfect unison opposite the earth so people see one face and it just happens to perfectly block out the sun because the distance matches the cover for our eyes.

And so on and so on.
I'm not here to change anyone's mind. It's up to people to go with the flow or question it.

Is there a single prediction that can be made using the dome model that can be proven by us at home?

It depends on what you're asking for.
Is there a single prediction for a globe model that can be proven by us at home?

 

[fyl2u]

It depends on what you're asking for.
Is there a single prediction for a globe model that can be proven by us at home?

Yes. The three things I mentioned in the post you quoted.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Doesn't matter, a container is a container. If there was a dome the air pressure would equalize within the container, it isn't. Volcanoes etc pump out gas all the time into our container.

Of course and those gases take their place in the stack, as does the dense mass that comes back to the ground and water.

Perhaps there's a force of some kind acting on the atmosphere causing this gradient, one perhaps with a downard acceleration making the air denser at the surface.

The force is the stacked atmosphere itself.
We push into that every second of every day, all our lives and use the ground as our foundation.

Such as?


So, the north pole is in the middle, like the dartboard model, with the southernmost areas like Australia, the south end of South America and Africa etc. spread out around the edges?

Around the edges of the inner circle, yes.

So you are coming out with domes, Earth isn’t a sphere etc but you don’t know why as you have zero evidence
That what you are saying?
But everyone else who has come up with data etc to show you are wrong are talking shit and it’s all a cover up?

If you want to argue that then carry on.
How about you show me proof of your globe.

But everyone else who has come up with data etc to show you are wrong are talking shit and it’s all a cover up?

Nobody has come up with data to show I'm wrong.
People have come up with what they found that caters for their mindset and use it as their battering ram of truth, which they cannot prove.

 

[DPTT]

Of course and those gases take their place in the stack, as does the dense mass that comes back to the ground and water.




The force is the stacked atmosphere itself.
We push into that every second of every day, all our lives and use the ground as our foundation.

Around the edges of the inner circle, yes.

If you want to argue that then carry on.
How about you show me proof of your globe.

Nobody has come up with data to show I'm wrong.
People have come up with what they found that caters for their mindset and use it as their battering ram of truth, which they cannot prove.

You refute all evidence which is shown to
You by saying you cannot physically see it so you cannot physically prove it
In your mind most scientists (obviously not the ones who invented live footy coverage) have an agenda of some sort to keep the herd dumbed down into believing such a ridiculous notion of the Earth being a sphere.
You have offered nowt to back up your theory of the Earth being covered in a ice made dome with stickers on it for stars etc…

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You refute all evidence which is shown to
You by saying you cannot physically see it so you cannot physically prove it
In your mind most scientists (obviously not the ones who invented live footy coverage) have an agenda of some sort to keep the herd dumbed down into believing such a ridiculous notion of the Earth being a sphere.

No, not at all. That's in your mind. You're the one saying it.
In my mind real scientists in general do fantastic work to give us many great things.

Hypothetical scientists are story tellers of imagination but their work is passed off as factual.

You have offered nowt to back up your theory of the Earth being covered in a ice made dome with stickers on it for stars etc…

Then you have absolutely no need to worry about it. It's just my own hypothesis and in no way can it impact what you believe. so there's no issue.

 

[DPTT]

No, not at all. That's in your mind. You're the one saying it.
In my mind real scientists in general do fantastic work to give us many great things.

Hypothetical scientists are story tellers of imagination but their work is passed off as factual.




Then you have absolutely no need to worry about it. It's just my own hypothesis and in no way can it impact what you believe. so there's no issue.

Well that’s how debate usually works matey
You don’t believe in what 99.9% of the population believes in in that the Earth is a sphere and that is perfectly fine. However, surely you think it’s also perfectly acceptable for people to ask you to show what theories/evidence you have gathered which supports your belief?
The Dome for example, it’s something you seem determined to believe is true but based on what evidence?
Saying it’s what I believe in just doesn’t work mate

 

[fyl2u]

How about you show me proof of your globe.

The motion of stars in the Northern hemisphere...

You must be logged on to see external links

You can see that the stars appear to be moving in an anti-clockwise direction, centred around Polaris.

It stands to reason that if the world were a dome rather than a sphere, that anyone in the Southern hemisphere would see the same thing but from further away, correct?

And yet, this is the motion of stars in the Southern hemisphere...

You must be logged on to see external links

You can see that the stars appear to be moving in a clockwise direction instead, centred around The Southern Cross.

This can only be achieved if the northern and southern hemispheres are precisely that - hemispheres, facing in opposite directions.

With a dome/flat model, the motion of the stars while standing on "the equator" on a dome/flat model should also be in the same direction as in the northern hemisphere, centred around Polaris again.

And yet we see this...

Logon or register to see this image

These three views of the motion of the stars could only be observed if the planet is a globe.

They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the world is a globe, not a disc or a dome.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Well that’s how debate usually works matey
You don’t believe in what 99.9% of the population believes in in that the Earth is a sphere and that is perfectly fine. However, surely you think it’s also perfectly acceptable for people to ask you to show what theories/evidence you have gathered which supports your belief?
The Dome for example, it’s something you seem determined to believe is true but based on what evidence?
Saying it’s what I believe in just doesn’t work mate

It doesn't have to work for you.

 

[DPTT]

It doesn't have to work for you.

If doesn’t but it would be nice if you explained why and how it works for you

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The motion of stars in the Northern hemisphere...

You must be logged on to see external links

You can see that the stars appear to be moving in an anti-clockwise direction, centred around Polaris.

It stands to reason that if the world were a dome rather than a sphere, that anyone in the Southern hemisphere would see the same thing but from further away, correct?

And yet, this is the motion of stars in the Southern hemisphere...

You must be logged on to see external links

You can see that the stars appear to be moving in a clockwise direction instead, centred around The Southern Cross.

This can only be achieved if the northern and southern hemispheres are precisely that - hemispheres, facing in opposite directions.

Or a dome that people see moving lights from, either side.

With a dome/flat model, the motion of the stars while standing on "the equator" on a dome/flat model should also be in the same direction as in the northern hemisphere, centred around Polaris again.

The so called equator would be a potential ring around a potential circle.

And yet we see this...

Logon or register to see this image

These three views of the motion of the stars could only be observed if the planet is a globe.

I fail to see how you come to that conclusion.

They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the world is a globe, not a disc or a dome.

There's is absolutely no proof of the earth being a spinning globe.

If doesn’t but it would be nice if you explained why and how it works for you

I'm offering explanations What people take from them is not my issue.
People are trying to argue against me by using their go to answers to their globe of which, if they're honest, they are totally reliant on to argue as facts but knowing they are not in possession of their own facts.

 

[Teed]

Psalm 19:1: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork"

Weird that Wernher Von Braun should turn into a Christian and have that on his grave stone, anyone reckon he was on a wind up, you know what these Germans are like for their sense of humour.

​

 

[fyl2u]

Or a dome that people see moving lights from, either side.

If it were a dome, the lights would be moving in the same direction regardless of where you were standing, not opposite directions in the north and the south.

The so called equator would be a potential ring around a potential circle.

Yes, and if you were standing on it, the stars would be moving in the same direction as they would if you were standing for example 200 miles north of it. And yet they don't.

I fail to see how you come to that conclusion.

Then read it again, it's quite clear.

Do you have an alternate explanation for why the stars rotate one way in the north, but in the opposite direction in the south, and why when standing on the equator they go straight across the sky rather than rotating at all? It is only possible with a spinning globe. It is impossible with a disc or dome.

There's is absolutely no proof of the earth being a spinning globe.

Yes there is. I'm showing it to you right now.

 

[DPTT]

Or a dome that people see moving lights from, either side.




The so called equator would be a potential ring around a potential circle.



I fail to see how you come to that conclusion.




There's is absolutely no proof of the earth being a spinning globe.

I'm offering explanations What people take from them is not my issue.
People are trying to argue against me by using their go to answers to their globe of which, if they're honest, they are totally reliant on to argue as facts but knowing they are not in possession of their own facts.

@fyl2u has just demonstrated and you refute that as he’s using someone else’s data. What’s he meant to do, physically fly to outer space (which am not even sure you believe in) and take photos of earth himself??
Your responses are just silly

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If it were a dome, the lights would be moving in the same direction regardless of where you were standing, not opposite directions in the north and the south.

Mirrored.

Yes, and if you were standing on it, the stars would be moving in the same direction as they would if you were standing for example 200 miles north of it. And yet they don't.

Standing on what?

Do you have an alternate explanation for why the stars rotate one way in the north, but in the opposite direction in the south

Mirroring.

and why when standing on the equator they go straight across the sky rather than rotating at all?

They just move away from your view as you stand in the portion of circle people call, the equator.

It is only possible with a spinning globe. It is impossible with a disc or dome.

Because you are told this and I wouldn't expect you to say anything other, to be fair.

@fyl2u has just demonstrated and you refute that as he’s using someone else’s data. What’s he meant to do, physically fly to outer space (which am not even sure you believe in) and take photos of earth himself??
Your responses are just silly

If he doesn't then what's he relying on?

 

[DPTT]

Mirrored.



Standing on what?



Mirroring.





They just move away from your view as you stand in the portion of circle people call, the equator.


Because you are told this and I wouldn't expect you to say anything other, to be fair.



If he doesn't then what's he relying on?

The very many scholars and scientists who have studied this and ALL have come to the same conclusion that the earth is a globe.

But you refute all that based on ….

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The very many scholars and scientists who have studied this and ALL have come to the same conclusion that the earth is a globe.

But you refute all that based on ….

Come to the same conclusion as in, how?
How did you come to your conclusion?

 

[fyl2u]

Mirrored.

Mirrored against what? Where is this mirror and how does it mirror a completely different set of stars to those you see in the northern hemisphere?

Standing on what?

Standing on anything you like. Some land 200 miles north of the equator, or a boat, or on your best mates shoulders. It makes no difference what you're standing on, you can observe it with your own eyes.

They just move away from your view as you stand in the portion of circle people call, the equator.

That only makes sense if the world is a globe. If it were a disc or dome the motion would be circular.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Mirrored against what? Where is this mirror and how does it mirror a completely different set of stars to those you see in the northern hemisphere?

They don't mirror a different set of stars. They mirror points of light, some of which you will see and some of which you will not, due to your eyes being not good enough to see through the obscurity of the atmosphere.
You naturally believe they are trillions of miles into space and earth spins so you see whatever you see as your earth comes around.

Standing on anything you like. Some land 200 miles north of the equator, or a boat, or on your best mates shoulders. It makes no difference what you're standing on, you can observe it with your own eyes.

It all comes down to distance and angle as to what you see.

That only makes sense if the world is a globe. If it were a disc or dome the motion would be circular.

That depends on where you are on the earth's circle.

 

[cosmicchris00]

Post graduate engineering qualifications qualify you on what shape the Earth is and what space is, etc, does it?

Yes, I'd figured out the earth's shape and why it was thus in junior school.

Physics O level is all you need in near earth space.

Space, especially deep space, is another matter for which you need an understanding of cosmology and the ability to take a leap of faith.

We may even agree on some of that

 

[fyl2u]

They don't mirror a different set of stars. They mirror points of light, some of which you will see and some of which you will not, due to your eyes being not good enough to see through the obscurity of the atmosphere.
You naturally believe they are trillions of miles into space and earth spins so you see whatever you see as your earth comes around.


It all comes down to distance and angle as to what you see.


That depends on where you are on the earth's circle.

Call them whatever you like - stars, points of light, it doesn't matter - the motion of them that you can observe yourself only makes sense if the world is a rotating globe. Even with the most convoluted set of mirrors, the motion can't be explained if the Earth is considered to be disc-shaped or part of a dome.