Put a flat earthier into space

[Yankee Mackem]

You reckon he’s a genuine Newcastle United supporter? He might be. He may well be telling all his mates how he’s having a laugh at our expense but it’s equally as possible that he is an alter-ego and we just haven’t figured out who yet.
In either case he’s not funny in the slightest. I said it earlier on here but the fact that he keeps on trying to counter everything put to him suggests to me that he’s on a wind up.

With that user name? On a Sunderland website? I think it's pretty clear, and the number of responses, including mine, are just feeding his gratification.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No you are a tiresome moron and i will waste no more effort on someone who has no intent to listen. I will from now on simply take the piss out of you.

Feel free to do what you wish.
I'll read it all and have a smirk if it's a good one.

 

[Kevj]

What science?
What are you arguing in favour of in terms of what I'm arguing?

What are they wrong about?
People believe in gravity and believe they use it every day in all walks of life. They believe they use it so what are they wrong about in terms of how they do their job?
The only wrong I could see is simply, they believe gravity is responsible for what atmospheric pressure is responsible for.
It's just a passed buck, in my opinion of course.


Read what I said and you'll see I didn't mention flipping. I mentioned wobbling.
Here's how simple it is but also how easily conned people can be.
That tilt going around a so called ball of fire would stay exactly the same as we see it in that picture. All the way around.
There is absolutely no reason nor means for it to do anything other than that.

Walk around a living room light holding the titled globe in out stretch hands and sidestep all around that light and see for yourself.
You would never show the bottom of that globe because it could never move from that tilt.
All you could have is the spin and everything from that spin that comes into direct contact with the light.

The bottom would always face away.
That's just one thing. The spin itself is another and the orbit is another and the elliptical orbit is another. The list of global nonsense is off the scale...but, like I say, that's just my opinion.

Conventional, known science. Not the bullshit you are peddling.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Conventional, known science. Not the bullshit you are peddling.

I'm not arguing against conventional known science. I'm arguing against the stories that are passed off as factual science that offer no proof.

 

[fyl2u]

Read what I said and you'll see I didn't mention flipping. I mentioned wobbling.

Yes, you did:

We are just fooled into a belief that the Earth so called ball can just flip orientation as it spins around in a circle or a supposed elliptical orbit.

So as well as being completely wrong about what it is you're arguing against, you're also lying about it afterwards.

Here's how simple it is but also how easily conned people can be.
That tilt going around a so called ball of fire would stay exactly the same as we see it in that picture. All the way around.
There is absolutely no reason nor means for it to do anything other than that.

I agree, the image I posted is accurate. There is no change in tilt. It stays the same all the way around. Just like in my picture.

Therefore when the Earth is at one end of the orbit, the northern hemisphere is nearer the Sun than the southern hemisphere, and then when the Earth reaches the exact opposite extreme of its orbit the southern hemisphere is closer to the Sun.

Walk around a living room light holding the titled globe in out stretch hands and sidestep all around that light and see for yourself.
You would never show the bottom of that globe because it could never move from that tilt.
All you could have is the spin and everything from that spin that comes into direct contact with the light.

The bottom would always face away.

You're wrong. The only way it would work the way you describe it would be if you're sidestepping around the light with your back to the light all the way around (or constantly facing the light), changing the actual direction you're facing as you move around it.

In that version of events YOU are introducing "wobble" (or "flip" or whatever you want to call it) that doesn't exist in the actual solar system.

Yet again, you're performing an experiment with false starting conditions and receiving an incorrect answer at the end of it.

If you want to CORRECTLY model the solar system in the way the scientific community sees it, you need to walk around your lightbulb while constantly facing the same ACTUAL direction (e.g. north).

Logon or register to see this image

That's just one thing. The spin itself is another and the orbit is another and the elliptical orbit is another. The list of global nonsense is off the scale...but, like I say, that's just my opinion.

There's nonsense here all right, and it's all coming from you. You don't even understand what it is you're arguing against, let alone explain how your own cell model is supposed to work.

And you still haven't explained your bell jar, pump, motor, lid, plastic bead experiment that supposedly disproves "the space orbit", whatever that is supposed to mean.

 

[Kevj]

I'm not arguing against conventional known science. I'm arguing against the stories that are passed off as factual science that offer no proof.

No, you are arguing against demonstrable science fact and doing it very poorly too.

 

[DaveH]

There's nonsense here all right, and it's all coming from you. You don't even understand what it is you're arguing against, let alone explain how your own cell model is supposed to work.

And you still haven't explained your bell jar, pump, motor, lid, plastic bead experiment that supposedly disproves "the space orbit", whatever that is supposed to mean.

That is the key thing. It is not that there is no proof, there just is no proof that he is able or willing to understand. I don't think we will ever know how real this stupidity is, but there is a worrying lack of any level of understanding about anything. He can't even agree on basic observations half the time. "This is what you see when you look at the night sky", "no it isn't". You can't argue against anything like that. It is almost stubborn stupidness. Same as "there is no proof of anything" and "grass isn't green".

Like what you did above, I've tried drawing up diagrams in the past and there is no understanding there. I remember one which was about if up a tower you would be able to see the horizon. I started at a basic of drawing a circle for the earth and a tower coming from it. The reply was to edit the diagram and have a 1 pixel high tower so it was "more in proportion". I explained that the tower was height h and was drawn out of proportion to give space to mark in angles and all the stuff needed to work stuff out using basic geometry. It didn't go any further because he couldn't comprehend how proportions didn't matter when h can be any height and r (as radius of the planet) could be any value too. What mattered was what values you put in at the end to reflect the earth, but the same rules would apply to any planet, moon or even a small stick and a football. He couldn't grasp that. It is an eye opener into the intelligence levels of some.

 

[Pancho]

That is the key thing. It is not that there is no proof, there just is no proof that he is able or willing to understand. I don't think we will ever know how real this stupidity is, but there is a worrying lack of any level of understanding about anything. He can't even agree on basic observations half the time. "This is what you see when you look at the night sky", "no it isn't". You can't argue against anything like that. It is almost stubborn stupidness. Same as "there is no proof of anything" and "grass isn't green".

Like what you did above, I've tried drawing up diagrams in the past and there is no understanding there. I remember one which was about if up a tower you would be able to see the horizon. I started at a basic of drawing a circle for the earth and a tower coming from it. The reply was to edit the diagram and have a 1 pixel high tower so it was "more in proportion". I explained that the tower was height h and was drawn out of proportion to give space to mark in angles and all the stuff needed to work stuff out using basic geometry. It didn't go any further because he couldn't comprehend how proportions didn't matter when h can be any height and r (as radius of the planet) could be any value too. What mattered was what values you put in at the end to reflect the earth, but the same rules would apply to any planet, moon or even a small stick and a football. He couldn't grasp that. It is an eye opener into the intelligence levels of some.

Or TL DR - Dunning Kruger.

 

[SYB_DC]

Yep, I'm well aware of how it supposedly works but there's no ral mechanism for why it would work. It has to wobble or if you don;t like the word, wobble we can call it tilted shift.
If you're moving around a big ball at angle then your angle will never shift as you move around that big ball.
Basically if your north pole is facing away from the big ball then that's it all the way around it. It has to be fixed unless there's some force that alters that. Is there a force?

You have just proven you are literally not smart enough to tilt a ball and move it around a circle that doesn't have you at the center. If you move it around a circular table, keeping the ball at a constant angle with respect to the ceiling, walls, and floor, the point you have drawn on the ball will sometimes point towards the middle and sometimes outward. If you're too thick to replicate an experiment that any six-year-old can do - which appears to be the case - you don't appear to have the candle power to discuss astrophysics.

 

[payne]

There's no proof he's willing to accept that doesn't already fit his own version of reality. There's no point even providing any if it doesn't align to the Dome Planet Model.

 

[Roman maroni]

One of the funniest things that I've seen on YouTube was a flat earth convention, one of the so called experts held up a globe and said "if the world was round you'd be able to get in your car in Scotland and freewheel all the way down to London, you wouldn't even need to start it" .That is the mentality that you're dealing with when discussing the shape of the Earth.

 

[What A Waster]

One of the funniest things that I've seen on YouTube was a flat earth convention, one of the so called experts held up a globe and said "if the world was round you'd be able to get in your car in Scotland and freewheel all the way down to London, you wouldn't even need to start it" .That is the mentality that you're dealing with when discussing the shape of the Earth.

Then how come all balls on a flat surface don't roll south? I mean, that's the thickest thing ever. Must've even been people in the audience thinking he's got that wrong.

 

[DaveH]

They are faking repair and age issues with the fake space station that is in fake space. NASA are really upping their game.

You must be logged on to see external links

Except it is not NASA and you can see the damn thing or track it with radio telescopes. With the right conditions and equipment, you can photograph it too, using data from this site.

You must be logged on to see external links

That site is not government run and uses the mathematics of orbital mechanics and some or circular geometry to predict when you can see a transit from your location. Maths that just would not work if the ISS was not in the orbit they say and the earth was not the reported size and shape. But yeah, conspiracy.

I’ve never managed to capture an image of it, but there is a good example here.

You must be logged on to see external links

I did hear one nutter claim it was probably a plane used to fake the ISS. I’d love to see something that shape fly.

 

[Roman maroni]

Then how come all balls on a flat surface don't roll south? I mean, that's the thickest thing ever. Must've even been people in the audience thinking he's got that wrong.

I thought he was taking the piss, but he was deadly serious.

 

[legend7]

You may spend all day moving gases around but it doesn't show you the mechanism for why. If it did you would explain it and you don't seem to be able to.

Tyre fitters can inflate car tyres to set psi on a gauge. They don't need to have a clue what's happening at molecular level.
Prove me wrong in what I've just said and if you can explain what you believe is really happening then let's see it.

Do you have any other shall we say "controversial" views or is this the only absolutely ridiculous thing you think?
Genuinely intrigued.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes, you did:


So as well as being completely wrong about what it is you're arguing against, you're also lying about it afterwards.



I agree, the image I posted is accurate. There is no change in tilt. It stays the same all the way around. Just like in my picture.

Therefore when the Earth is at one end of the orbit, the northern hemisphere is nearer the Sun than the southern hemisphere, and then when the Earth reaches the exact opposite extreme of its orbit the southern hemisphere is closer to the Sun.



You're wrong. The only way it would work the way you describe it would be if you're sidestepping around the light with your back to the light all the way around (or constantly facing the light), changing the actual direction you're facing as you move around it.

In that version of events YOU are introducing "wobble" (or "flip" or whatever you want to call it) that doesn't exist in the actual solar system.

Yet again, you're performing an experiment with false starting conditions and receiving an incorrect answer at the end of it.

If you want to CORRECTLY model the solar system in the way the scientific community sees it, you need to walk around your lightbulb while constantly facing the same ACTUAL direction (e.g. north).

Logon or register to see this image

There's nonsense here all right, and it's all coming from you. You don't even understand what it is you're arguing against, let alone explain how your own cell model is supposed to work.

And you still haven't explained your bell jar, pump, motor, lid, plastic bead experiment that supposedly disproves "the space orbit", whatever that is supposed to mean.

The orientation you ticked is what I'm saying.

It can't change and this is not what we're handed.
If we were you would never see your south pole.

No, you are arguing against demonstrable science fact and doing it very poorly too.

Can you demonstrate this science that I'm arguing against t be factual without appeal to authority?

You have just proven you are literally not smart enough to tilt a ball and move it around a circle that doesn't have you at the center. If you move it around a circular table, keeping the ball at a constant angle with respect to the ceiling, walls, and floor, the point you have drawn on the ball will sometimes point towards the middle and sometimes outward. If you're too thick to replicate an experiment that any six-year-old can do - which appears to be the case - you don't appear to have the candle power to discuss astrophysics.

That's the big con.
It wouldn't do what you say unless you manipulate it to do so.
If you hold it at the tilt you're told and you side step around the table or centre light you will always have your north or south pole pointing away, depending on which way you angle your poles.

Go and try it.

Do you have any other shall we say "controversial" views or is this the only absolutely ridiculous thing you think?
Genuinely intrigued.

I think there's a lot of stuff told in life/history that is questionable.
The issue seems to be, to question authority is to be labelled a conspiracy nut case.

 

[legend7]

I think there's a lot of stuff told in life/history that is questionable.
The issue seems to be, to question authority is to be labelled a conspiracy nut case.

I didn't ask you that I mean do you have any specific examples like this one that are quite outlandish and remarkably entertaining?

 

[payne]

I always wonder why the need for the lies. What's the point in making up so much shit to tell the public. If it's a dome it's a dome.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I didn't ask you that I mean do you have any specific examples like this one that are quite outlandish and remarkably entertaining?

I think all the space stuff is outlandish and mild to very entertaining from my point of view.
I've literally giggled at the primary school like efforts of stuff like, lunar landers and such.
The moon stuff is hilarious on many levels when you get the opportunity to delve in and then see the videos.

 

[legend7]

I think all the space stuff is outlandish and mild to very entertaining from my point of view.
I've literally giggled at the primary school like efforts of stuff like, lunar landers and such.
The moon stuff is hilarious on many levels when you get the opportunity to delve in and then see the videos.

Yeah but that's all linked to your one ludicrous theory.
I mean do you think fish are androids or roads are liquorice rivers or anything like that?