• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


legend7 said:
OK then so are there any other specifics of things you disagree with compared to those that "follow the curriculum" that may seem outlandish to us?
Apart from the whole earth/space malarkey.
Click to expand...
It depends on how you want to look at things.

Can you remember any times when we learned stuff only to find out it wasn't based on truth's?
Can you ever remember medical stuff told and sold to us as safe that turned out to be the opposite.
Basically some of what we get told and tutored on can turn out to be wrong or massively questionable.

Sometimes the tutors are only regurgitating what was tutored into themselves.
What is the truth of what the tutor is conveying to the class?

We're lied to as soon as we can communicate.
Santa and the tooth fairy....etc.
Kid's stuff and they wouldn't lie to us as we get older....right?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is exactly what we're handed and by "you would never see" I presume you mean "the sun would never see" in which case I think you need to think about it again and maybe even do the experiment yourself with a globe (or a football, tennis ball, an orange or whatever) if you don't own a globe. Of course the south pole would get sunshine! For half they year it gets excessive amounts of it!

Also, if the angle of the Earth stays the same all the way around, why pick on the south pole? Surely by the exact same reasoning you're using, the north pole wouldn't see the sun either? I don't believe for a second you're genuinely this stupid. You're just being deliberately argumentative now for the sake of it.
Nukehasslefan said:
It depends on how you want to look at things.

Can you remember any times when we learned stuff only to find out it wasn't based on truth's?
Can you ever remember medical stuff told and sold to us as safe that turned out to be the opposite.
Basically some of what we get told and tutored on can turn out to be wrong or massively questionable.

Sometimes the tutors are only regurgitating what was tutored into themselves.
What is the truth of what the tutor is conveying to the class?

We're lied to as soon as we can communicate.
Santa and the tooth fairy....etc.
Kid's stuff and they wouldn't lie to us as we get older....right?
Click to expand...

Science and maths aren't about regurgitating information we're taught, they're about finding verifiable proofs that can be recreated by others.

I'll tell you one thing they definitely aren't about, and that's ignoring verifiable proofs in favour of making up your own stories with zero basis in reality and not even a single formula or piece of evidence to back up those stories.
 
Last edited:
fyl2u said:
It is exactly what we're handed and by "you would never see" I presume you mean "the sun would never see" in which case I think you need to think about it again and maybe even do the experiment yourself with a globe (or a football, tennis ball, an orange or whatever) if you don't own a globe. Of course the south pole would get sunshine! For half they year it gets excessive amounts of it!
Click to expand...


But it wouldn't in the set up, unless the globe was manipulated, which it is.
The space vacuum offers no scope for change. There's no force to alter the motion of the spinning globe into a north to south pole configuration as it spins around this so called big ball of fire.


fyl2u said:
Also, if the angle of the Earth stays the same all the way around, why pick on the south pole? Surely by the exact same reasoning you're using, the north pole wouldn't see the sun either? I don't believe for a second you're genuinely this stupid. You're just being deliberately argumentative now for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
I'm just going by the tilt of a model globe showing the north pole at the top. I even changed it up by saying the tilt could be placed at the south pole as you move around.

And this isn't about being stupid, it's about seeing something for the nonsense (in my opinion it is portrayed as by those who had to find ways of making it fit observations, or what we're told are observations.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It depends on how you want to look at things.

Can you remember any times when we learned stuff only to find out it wasn't based on truth's?
Can you ever remember medical stuff told and sold to us as safe that turned out to be the opposite.
Basically some of what we get told and tutored on can turn out to be wrong or massively questionable.

Sometimes the tutors are only regurgitating what was tutored into themselves.
What is the truth of what the tutor is conveying to the class?

We're lied to as soon as we can communicate.
Santa and the tooth fairy....etc.
Kid's stuff and they wouldn't lie to us as we get older....right?
Click to expand...
So no specifics then, its just the earth where you don't believe science or maths, everything else is sound.
 
fyl2u said:
Science and maths aren't about regurgitating information we're taught, they're about finding verifiable proofs that can be recreated by others.
Click to expand...
Of which there are none in what we're arguing.


fyl2u said:
I'll tell you one thing they definitely aren't about, and that's ignoring verifiable proofs in favour of making up your own stories with zero basis in reality and not even a single formula or piece of evidence to back up those stories.
Click to expand...
What I muse is of no issue. I don't pass it off as fact.
What I'm arguing about with the spinning globe and so called space etc...... is.
legend7 said:
So no specifics then, its just the earth where you don't believe science or maths, everything else is sound.
Click to expand...
Do you have any?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Do you have any?
Click to expand...
I'm not the one with seemingly ludicrous views on the planets hence I was curious if there were many more that the majority may think are very odd or extreme.
You sort of dismiss maths as being twisted to suit the globe model so does that mean that things that use maths/pi/trigonometry in engineering etc you don't belive in either?
Bridges just float on dense pressure they don't really get engineered or need strength or something like that?
Or does earth maths work just not the maths that can be used to measure the earth?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
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.
Click to expand...
:D:D:D:D What do you need, a Youtube video of a small child demonstrating exactly what you refuse to understand verbally?

Go to the store. Buy an apple. Tilt it with the stem to the left. Then, without changing your grip on it, move it in a circle in front of you. Notice how the stem stayed to the left?

Good. Now imagine that there's a nice sun within that imaginary circle you just moved it. Was it pointing towards the sun the whole time?

No, it wasn't.

Congratulations. You've reached the level of a mediocre six-year-old in terms of understanding a physical model of planetary motion and the seasons.
 
Last edited:
SYB_DC said:
:D:D:D:D What do you need, a Youtube video of a small child demonstrating exactly what you refuse to understand verbally?

Go to the store. Buy an apple. Tilt it with the stem to the left. Then, without changing your grip on it, move it in a circle in front of you. Notice how the stem stayed to the left?

Good. Now imagine that there's a nice sun within that imaginary circle you just moved it. Was it pointing towards the sun the whole time?

No, it wasn't.

Congratulations. You've reached the level of a mediocre six-year-old in terms of understanding a physical model of planetary motion and the seasons.
Click to expand...

I don't know why this seems so outlandish and difficult for him to understand

You must be logged on to see media items
 
Nukehasslefan said:
But it wouldn't in the set up, unless the globe was manipulated, which it is.
The space vacuum offers no scope for change. There's no force to alter the motion of the spinning globe into a north to south pole configuration as it spins around this so called big ball of fire.



I'm just going by the tilt of a model globe showing the north pole at the top. I even changed it up by saying the tilt could be placed at the south pole as you move around.

And this isn't about being stupid, it's about seeing something for the nonsense (in my opinion it is portrayed as by those who had to find ways of making it fit observations, or what we're told are observations.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe someone is struggling to understand this. Light a fire in your garden and stand facing it. Then imagine a circle going round it. Walk round that circle but keep facing the same way. Half was round you find the fire is warming your back and you can’t see it. It really is that simple.

I suppose where the confusion might come from is if you constructed a model solar system with the earth on a spinning arm with the earth tilted away from the sun. In that scenario, the north pole would always be tilted away. The difference is the earth is not on a fixed solid arm forcing the axis to always face away.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
But it wouldn't in the set up, unless the globe was manipulated, which it is.
The space vacuum offers no scope for change. There's no force to alter the motion of the spinning globe into a north to south pole configuration as it spins around this so called big ball of fire.
Click to expand...

There's no force needed. The angle of tilt doesn't change. It stays constant all the way around.

Look, it's really simple...

Logon or register to see this image


On the left-hand globe, it's the height of summer in the northern hemisphere and the height of winter in the southern hemisphere. See how the north pole is getting plenty of light but the south pole isn't?

On the right-hand globe, it's the height of summer in the southern hemisphere and the height of winter in the northern hemisphere. See how the south pole is getting plenty of light but the north pole isn't?

And look, here's a little man holding the globe, not changing the angle of tilt at all as he walks around, just walking around in a circle from one side of the light to the other and back again while holding the globe firmly in one single orientation...

Logon or register to see this image



Nukehasslefan said:
I'm just going by the tilt of a model globe showing the north pole at the top. I even changed it up by saying the tilt could be placed at the south pole as you move around.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain that one. You're aware that the whole globe is tilted, right? There is no way to tilt the north or the south of the globe without tilting the other at the same time. :lol:

Nukehasslefan said:
And this isn't about being stupid, it's about seeing something for the nonsense (in my opinion it is portrayed as by those who had to find ways of making it fit observations, or what we're told are observations.
Click to expand...

It very much is about being stupid. Or at least acting stupid.
 
legend7 said:
I'm not the one with seemingly ludicrous views on the planets hence I was curious if there were many more that the majority may think are very odd or extreme.
You sort of dismiss maths as being twisted to suit the globe model so does that mean that things that use maths/pi/trigonometry in engineering etc you don't belive in either?
Bridges just float on dense pressure they don't really get engineered or need strength or something like that?
Or does earth maths work just not the maths that can be used to measure the earth?
Click to expand...
I have no issue with lots of stuff. A lot of stuff is provable. And then we have Earth and space...etc, which isn't.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I have no issue with lots of stuff. A lot of stuff is provable. And then we have Earth and space...etc, which isn't.
Click to expand...
Maths proves a lot of it that's why I was curious if you accepted maths on the ground when you seem to think they make up the numbers to suit the earth being a globe etc.
Maths isn't open to conjecture or opinion, 2+2=4 and pi is easily proved by doing exercises using it and checking the results by measuring things, same with trigonometry.
But anyway no matter what I say you'll come back with some nonsense about space Maths being different.
 
legend7 said:
Maths proves a lot of it that's why I was curious if you accepted maths on the ground when you seem to think they make up the numbers to suit the earth being a globe etc.
Maths isn't open to conjecture or opinion, 2+2=4 and pi is easily proved by doing exercises using it and checking the results by measuring things, same with trigonometry.
But anyway no matter what I say you'll come back with some nonsense about space Maths being different.
Click to expand...

Let's face it, he can't cope with the idea of straight lines or the concept of walking around in a circle while facing a single direction.

He'll probably argue that 2+2 actually equals 6 because 2 isn't really 2 it's 3; everyone else is just parroting the story that 2 is 2 that they learned in school.
 
fyl2u said:
Let's face it, he can't cope with the idea of straight lines or the concept of walking around in a circle while facing a single direction.

He'll probably argue that 2+2 actually equals 6 because 2 isn't really 2 it's 3; everyone else is just parroting the story that 2 is 2 that they learned in school.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh yeah plus you have to keep squaring things for no reason remember.
How silly of me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top