• 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


Nukehasslefan said:
As the story goes. You have no clue as

In the centre of this cell is the energy we see projected onto that ice dome, including all the rest of the lights moving about.
No poles as such but one big central energy vortex that is consistently being fed.

The farther away from it the less we feel of that vortex.
The closer would be of such strength (to us) we would perish.

I've explained a lot. You can look back if you're interested...and if not, no probs.

You asked so I've given you a little insight.

Just so you know...none of it factually provable and I don't pass it off as such. It's my own thoughts based on my own experiments and workings.
Click to expand...
So 3 things if something flew between the energy projector and the ice wall would the projected lights vanish as they would be in shadow so to speak?
Why has nobody found or gone to this centre that is beaming all of these lights out?
You didn't really explain the poles, if they aren't on the globe where do they sit on your "map" I can walk north and hit a pole, go right across it to more water then eventually I'll hit a different pole, cross that then end up where I started.
I could do that from here or Turkey or China so how do you explain that in your cell, why don't you sketch something like people have asked, will they not let you have crayons where you are?
 
legend7 said:
So 3 things if something flew between the energy projector and the ice wall would the projected lights vanish as they would be in shadow so to speak?
Why has nobody found or gone to this centre that is beaming all of these lights out?
You didn't really explain the poles, if they aren't on the globe where do they sit on your "map" I can walk north and hit a pole, go right across it to more water then eventually I'll hit a different pole, cross that then end up where I started.
I could do that from here or Turkey or China so how do you explain that in your cell, why don't you sketch something like people have asked, will they not let you have crayons where you are?
Click to expand...
I’ve said it to others. He’s a wum. He doesn’t believe any of what he’s typing. He knows the earth is a sphere orbiting the sun just as much as we do. He just gets off on the crack of it all.
 
The Krankie Returns said:
Yes he does put a lot of work into it. Hence a few posts back I used the line from Hamlet “the wum he doth protest too much, methinks”. In short he has a façade to keep up now.
Click to expand...
I wonder if he has a wife and if she is a prostitute or a ghost or something, I mean if he can't prove 100% she isnt either and his understanding of women are just these "stories" which we have all read about since we were kids, how can he be sure?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Not really. It's my way of saying, none of it makes sense because it doesn't make sense.
There's little to no logic about a global Earth and space stories.
Click to expand...
It makes absolute sense to anyone with a brain.
It makes no sense to you because you're absolutely determined to do everything you can to make it not make sense to you at every single step of the explanations we give you.

You're not trying to understand how it works, you're trying to stop yourself from understanding how it works.

Presumably you do this so that you can continue spouting this bizarre fruitloop theory of cells that nobody has any evidence of, ice walls that nobody has ever seen or has evidence of, energy projections that nobody has any evidence of, and big central energy vortices that nobody has ever seen or has any evidence of.

You tell us you've done experiments that prove science to be wrong, but you won't tell us what those experiments are, and for some reason you won't publish these groundbreaking, world-shattering results that would undoubtedly earn you a Nobel prize and elevate your name above the likes of Einstein, Newton and Hawking.


Nukehasslefan said:
You made a point to type it all out so you should've put it in regardless of what you think I will think.

As for the so called Earth tilt. I've clearly shown what's more realistic in what we actually do see and what isn't in terms of what we're told is happening around a so called big fiery ball.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't. You've shown how it works in the fantasy world of your brain and refuse to accept that it is YOU that is introducing additional forces to turn the tilt of the planet 360 degrees as you go around the sun, while our explanation of the system requires no such force because the tilt stays in the same direction all the way around.

Our explanation is realistic. Yours is swingball and fairground rides. And you don't even accept the basic concepts that make swingball and fairground rides work anyway, so how you can use them in your explanations is anybody's guess.

Nukehasslefan said:
Yep, the apparatus has friction.
Click to expand...

Well at least you believe that friction exists. That's a start.

Nukehasslefan said:
If the sun is acting like a big weight in the fabric to warp it then why is it only doing it in one direction?
Click to expand...
It isn't. If you can go and find me a 4-dimensional latex membrane I'll do the experiment for you and film it for you.

Nukehasslefan said:
Also, if the so called planets are simply falling into it but rotating fast enough around it to not be falling in then they could not be offering any elliptical orbit and certainly not a wobbling change in orientation.
Click to expand...
There is no wobbling change in orientation in the model we have shown you. The only model on this thread with a wobbling change in orientation is the model you showed us where one pole stays on the outside all the way around.

You can literally see elliptical orbits happening with your own eyes on that video using the latex membrane. Are you trying to tell us now that you believe elliptical orbits are impossible?

Nukehasslefan said:
Warped spacetime. It's a great story but that's all it is.
Click to expand...
You know what's a great story but that's all it is? The story about cells that nobody has any evidence of, ice walls that nobody has ever seen or has evidence of, energy projections that nobody has any evidence of, and big central energy vortices that nobody has ever seen or has any evidence of.

Nukehasslefan said:
Superman can fly and even turn back time....right?
Click to expand...
No mate, you're getting confused again. Superman is a work of fiction written by someone that either didn't understand physics or didn't care that his story had scientific flaws because it was intended for young kids.

Nukehasslefan said:
But that's just a movie...I know. This stuff is a reality...right?
Or is it a reality?
Or is it passed off as a theory?
Click to expand...
Logon or register to see this image

Nukehasslefan said:
The problems stated when people who were told Earth was supposedly a spinning oblate spheroid started to question the movement. This is when this special relativity came about to go along with general relativity.
Click to expand...
Actually, special relativity came first. General relativity came 10 years later. It doesn't surprise me that you don't know this. It would absolutely surprise me if you could explain what either of them were supposed to be describing in your own words without consulting the internet first to find out.

Nukehasslefan said:
You see when something is required to fit a concocted model and people have the authority to alter it to fit the ordinary Joe's/Jane's perception of what is around them, stuff like this can be used and be called a theory....a scientific theory to throw out a mindset of fact but backed up by the words " scientific theory"....a peer reviewed so called effort that rubber stamps a piece into the official storyline.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those damned peer reviews from people that understand what each other are talking about. They really suck. It's much better to invent things that nobody has any evidence of or has ever seen, not provide any kind of mathematical framework for how it supposed to function, and keep it to yourself so that nobody can prove what an absolute crock of shit it is.

Nukehasslefan said:
As I said before. dazzle us all with their brilliance and baffle us all with their bull****.
Click to expand...
Nobody needs to try to baffle you. You seem to do it all by yourself.

And then look at the rest of the people in this conversation who have heard the actual real science behind it all and are not baffled by it.

It's so weird. How can so many of us be so wrong and claim to use this incorrect science in our everyday lives, from GPS to mobile phone communication to the electronics in the computer you're using right now. We're obviously all just liars or deluded, and unaware that we're sitting here in the presence of the greatest free-thinking mind that has ever lived!

"Oh Father in Heaven forgive them, for they know not what they do!"
legend7 said:
I wonder if he has a wife and if she is a prostitute or a ghost or something, I mean if he can't prove 100% she isnt either and his understanding of women are just these "stories" which we have all read about since we were kids, how can he be sure?
Click to expand...
Don't be silly. That would be the most fanciful story on this entire thread.
If he isn't in a padded cell with a disco light projector on the ceiling and only allowed out once every three or four hours to use a computer, then he clearly lives with one or both of his parents.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
Of course it is.
People will regurgitate what they follow and argue from that point, whether they know the truth or not.
We all do it in all ways and means, with all kinds of stuff.
Click to expand...
No it is not. Do you mind me asking how far you went through the UK education system and what your highest qualification is or where your experience of the highest levels of education comes from?
 
I like how it's a cell. A nice linguistic trick to further the narrative to conspiracy types that it's all about control. A cell is like a prison where some outside force is running out lives etc etc. All part of the same paranoia that makes them believe there's a global conspiracy orchestrated to fool everyone.......for absolutely no reason. That's why everything complicated and hard to understand is a con and because they know it's a con they can now understand something.
 
payne said:
I like how it's a cell. A nice linguistic trick to further the narrative to conspiracy types that it's all about control. A cell is like a prison where some outside force is running out lives etc etc. All part of the same paranoia that makes them believe there's a global conspiracy orchestrated to fool everyone.......for absolutely no reason. That's why everything complicated and hard to understand is a con and because they know it's a con they can now understand something.
Click to expand...

According to this one, even the simplest of things are a con.
 
fyl2u said:
There's no flipping, you daft sod! The tilt remains constant all the way around the sun!



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheeses wept. No, no, no, no, no.

Look, here....

Logon or register to see this image


The globe on the left is positioned at the height of summer in the northern hemisphere and the height of winter in the southern hemisphere. Even as the globe spins on its axis, the northern hemisphere is spending more time facing the sun than the southern hemisphere, and the south pole is barely getting any light at all.

From there, the globe goes around the sun with NO SHIFTING OF AXIS AT ALL, no "wobble", no "tilted shift". It stays at exactly the same angle all the way around.

When it gets to the far side of its orbit around the sun, seen here as the globe on the right, IT IS STILL AT EXACTLY THE SAME ANGLE OF TILT WITH NO SHIFTING OR WOBBLING. The southern hemisphere is now spending more time in daylight than the northern hemisphere, and the NORTH pole is barely getting any light at all instead.

There's no magic, no wobbling, no tilt-shifting, no sleight of hand. The globe stays at the same angle constantly, thus creating the annual seasons at opposite times of year at opposite ends of the globe.

FFS man, this isn't rocket science. Even a child with half its brain missing can grasp this stuff.
Click to expand...

I hate to do this in case I encourage the loon, but this isn't true. The earth does wobble on its axis (and in its orbit) - axial precession as part of the Milankovitch cycles, which is one of the major influences in changing climate over millenia. NASA even use the word wobble to describe it. Not that it changes the fact that the earth isn't flat, like.
 
The King of Um said:
I hate to do this in case I encourage the loon, but this isn't true. The earth does wobble on its axis (and in its orbit) - axial precession as part of the Milankovitch cycles, which is one of the major influences in changing climate over millenia. NASA even use the word wobble to describe it. Not that it changes the fact that the earth isn't flat, like.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse him, he doesn't even get the basics yet. ;) :lol:
 
The King of Um said:
I hate to do this in case I encourage the loon, but this isn't true. The earth does wobble on its axis (and in its orbit) - axial precession as part of the Milankovitch cycles, which is one of the major influences in changing climate over millenia. NASA even use the word wobble to describe it. Not that it changes the fact that the earth isn't flat, like.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that minuscule wobble has nothing to do with the phenomenon he cites it for. It's not remotely close to the necessary magnitude. You're talking about past preterite tenses with someone who is at "what is a verb?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top