Put a flat earthier into space

[mux]

@Nukehasslefan how would you go about getting to the edge of the dome to prove it once and for all? And do you fancy coming with me?

 

[DaveH]

How to use a big lake to prove the earth is flat:

You must be logged on to see external links

The thing I'm finding funny is @Nukehasslefan seems to be suck in a confused loop. He keeps saying that by running a bath and looking at it saying "Yeah, looks flat", that proves the earth is flat and not a globe, but now he has decided the earth is not flat and 'some unknown shape' so every proof is only against a globe and as soon as you ask "so your flat water proves it is flat?", he gets flustered and just says "not a globe, not a globe, zero evidence". He can't make up his mind what it is proving and how his own flawed experiment works.

 

[Hend79]

Maybe paying a bit more attention will rectify that.

As the story goes, eh?
And we're now talking about explosions rather than natural atmospheric changes to pressure.


The reflective energy from the central sun creates the lower and higher pressures that ebb and flow tides as it passes around and over and down and back up and over and down.

The pressure upon the local seas at these points push the water up slowly as the pressure rises and then it falls back slowly as the pressure reduces causing the high tide and then the low tide.

Sorry but that is just a story you are telling us and you have no evidence of that whatsoever. Which is exactly what you are accusing the scientists who have studied the subject for years are doing, the funny thing is they actually have evidence, you dont. Now bore off you absolute simpleton

 

[Nukehasslefan]

@Nukehasslefan how would you go about getting to the edge of the dome to prove it once and for all? And do you fancy coming with me?

There is no edge.

 

[mux]

There is no edge.

So is there any way we could go somewhere to prove all of this? Like observe it for ourselves?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How to use a big lake to prove the earth is flat:

You must be logged on to see external links

The thing I'm finding funny is @Nukehasslefan seems to be suck in a confused loop. He keeps saying that by running a bath and looking at it saying "Yeah, looks flat", that proves the earth is flat and not a globe, but now he has decided the earth is not flat and 'some unknown shape' so every proof is only against a globe and as soon as you ask "so your flat water proves it is flat?", he gets flustered and just says "not a globe, not a globe, zero evidence". He can't make up his mind what it is proving and how his own flawed experiment works.

Trying to build another strawman will not help you.

Just stick to the water being flat and level when unhindered.
My view has not changed from the start so trying to change it up yourself and attributing that to me, is pointless.
It makes you look like you're struggling.

 

[TheDataGuy]

How do you know this happens with the Earth?
And also, do the toothpicks get wider at the top than the bottom on your orange?
If this was the case then sky scrapers would never be parallel.
Obviously the answer is supposedly that the Earth is just so big it's never noticeable but yet we're made to believe water curves after a few miles or we can see Earth curvature from a plane or the supposed ISS even though it's only supposed to be 240 miles above and we're told at that distance on a supposed massive globe it's like being a few millimetres above and apple, to a supposed scale.

Normal toothpicks, I am not trying to trick you with bendy toothpicks or odd shapes. Try it, it is a fascinating experiment. It's not hard.

There is no edge.

This is one thing we can agree on and that is because an object with no edge is a sphere. Yay, finally agreed on that point.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Sorry but that is just a story you are telling us and you have no evidence of that whatsoever. Which is exactly what you are accusing the scientists who have studied the subject for years are doing, the funny thing is they actually have evidence, you dont. Now bore off you absolute simpleton

Can you show me the evidence that you know to be factual?

 

[DaveH]

Some interesting stuff on here too.

You must be logged on to see external links

Further down, there are images from a perfectly level telescope with crosshairs showing the horizon predictably below the cross hairs. The claim they would be perfectly on the horizon was another "proof" from poor old Nukey.

Trying to build another strawman will not help you.

Just stick to the water being flat and level when unhindered.
My view has not changed from the start so trying to change it up yourself and attributing that to me, is pointless.
It makes you look like you're struggling.

Struggling by showing pictures that show the curve of the earth over water. Whatever next, a view of earth from space or the changing shadows showing a clearly real and three dimensional moon? I have to admit I'm scraping the barrel compared to your running of the bath and determining our place in the cosmos.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Normal toothpicks, I am not trying to trick you with bendy toothpicks or odd shapes. Try it, it is a fascinating experiment. It's not hard.

And the same question applies.
Are your toothpicks closer at the bottom than the top?

So is there any way we could go somewhere to prove all of this? Like observe it for ourselves?

I highly doubt it for us mere human beings.

 

[TheDataGuy]

Because it moves away and down the dome into the distance and light from it does not reach our eyes.

hehe, I love this one

And the same question applies.
Are your toothpicks closer at the bottom than the top?

They are closer at the bottom, but from the top you can see both the top and bottom but from the bottom you can barely see the top. Please explain.

Can you explain lunar eclipses in a flat world?

Do you have a friend that lives a few hundred miles away? If you do, please do this experiment.

Measure shadows across the country​

Pick two locations that are some distance apart (at least a couple hundred miles from each other and on the same meridian). Grab two sticks or dowels (or other objects) of equal length, two tape measures, and a friend. Each of you will take one stick/dowel/object and one tape measure to your location, stick the object into the ground, and measure the shadow. (For accuracy, you should both take your measurements at the same time of day.)

On a flat Earth, the shadow that is cast by each would be of the same length. However, if you and your friend compare notes, you'll find that one shadow was longer than the other. That's because, due to the curvature of Earth, the sun will hit one part of Earth at one angle and another part of Earth at a different angle even at the same time of day.

This experiment has been around since about 240 B.C., when

You must be logged on to see external links

compared the shadows cast in both Syene—now Aswan, Egypt—and Alexandria on the summer solstice. Eratosthenes had learned of a well in Syene where once a year on the summer solstice, the sun would illuminate the entire bottom of the well and tall buildings and other objects would not cast a shadow. However, he noticed that shadows were being cast on the summer solstice in Alexandria, so he measured the angle of the shadow and found it to be an angle of about 7.2°.

This was literally around over 2000 years ago when they were trying to determine what the shape of the earth was. This is not just some mainstream media conspiracy.
Using the above experiment you can actually work out the curvature of the earth. Here is an

You must be logged on to see external links

on how it is done. You can do this with friends if they live a couple of 100 miles away. You only need some wood that is the same length sticking out of the ground and knowledge of how far away you are as the crow flies.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Some interesting stuff on here too.

You must be logged on to see external links

Further down, there are images from a perfectly level telescope with crosshairs showing the horizon predictably below the cross hairs. The claim they would be perfectly on the horizon was another "proof" from poor old Nukey.

The real horizon is a theoretical line out to sea.
The sea and the sky with the theoretical line being the change in light back to your eyes.
If you want to do a genuine test of that line from your own vision then set up your own scope with a crosshair at the front and at the back and level it.

Then line up the crosshairs and see that theoretical line to your own vision because that theoretical horizon line is your horizon line in real time.

There's no seeing over it or under it unless you deliberately set up to do that which is all that's happening and to be honest it's daft to do because any genuine person can go and prove this to themselves.

Struggling by showing pictures that show the curve of the earth over water.

You should know that a large body of water is not going to curve unhindered.

Whatever next, a view of earth from space

Nope.

or the changing shadows showing a clearly real and three dimensional moon?

Nope.
The clear 3 dimensional moon you mention shows one face and look what they have to do to reason it out as to why it's like that
It should be pretty clear to people if they actually do logically look at it without global bias, why it's like that.

I have to admit I'm scraping the barrel compared to your running of the bath and determining our place in the cosmos.

Don't worry, the global model has been scraping the barrel for reasoning for long enough.

 

[fyl2u]

There are no obvious points.
People are coaxed into believing water conforms to a globe. A convex curve and just happens to sit level but are told it's not really level, it's just because it's massive and gravity is the reason.
When asked what gravity is you get, " well erm...well it's a force that gets pulled into the centre of the Earth."

When asked how a small moon with 1/6th less gravity can overcome this Earth to centre pull, it's "ermmm, well, it just does."

And so on.
The story tellers throwing nonsense out and expecting us to accept them as factual, with zero proof.

They're all obvious points, you just refuse to accept them.
You've been shown how and why water conforms to a globe. You refuse to accept it.
You've been told what gravity is. You refuse to accept it.
The moon isn't overcoming anything, it and the earth are orbitting each other as they both orbit the sun.
When asked why in your cell model everything is pulled or pushed downwards rather than in any other direction as if by perfectly vertical gravity but not actually by gravity, you avoid the question, mumble something about pressures and densities that makes absolutely zero sense, and we get "well erm....well the densities displace everything an it isn't downwards that's just the way things erm go because erm raisins".

When asked how your big magic projector is supposed to work regardless of where on the planet you are, how a non-globe planet doesn't work mathematically in terns of distances between places, how it's possible that people have actually crossed the poles, been to space, fly aeroplanes around the southern hemisphere without running out of fuel and crashing despite the distances required being ludicrously massive in order to fit the non-globe model, and it's "ermmm, well it just does."

And so on.

You're a story teller throwing nonsense out and expecting us to accept them as factual, with zero proof.

 

[taipeisafc]

The real horizon is a theoretical line out to sea.
The sea and the sky with the theoretical line being the change in light back to your eyes.
If you want to do a genuine test of that line from your own vision then set up your own scope with a crosshair at the front and at the back and level it.

Then line up the crosshairs and see that theoretical line to your own vision because that theoretical horizon line is your horizon line in real time.

There's no seeing over it or under it unless you deliberately set up to do that which is all that's happening and to be honest it's daft to do because any genuine person can go and prove this to themselves.

You should know that a large body of water is not going to curve unhindered.



Nope.

Nope.
The clear 3 dimensional moon you mention shows one face and look what they have to do to reason it out as to why it's like that
It should be pretty clear to people if they actually do logically look at it without global bias, why it's like that.



Don't worry, the global model has been scraping the barrel for reasoning for long enough.

Getting thicker by the post, utter nonsensical drivel. Moron

 

[Nukehasslefan]

hehe, I love this one

They are closer at the bottom, but from the top you can see both the top and bottom but from the bottom you can barely see the top. Please explain.

It's because the toothpicks are on an orange that is like a ball.
In real life we do not see tall towers that angle away out of plumb but we do regularly see them rise from thicker to thinner as the height builds.
If they had to follow your toothpick and orange analogy they would have to be built out of plumb and also thin to thick.

The global stuff makes no sense at all.

Can you explain lunar eclipses in a flat world?

Just a simple blocking of the movements going on inside the Earth when certain reflections are cancelled out for a while. Is my guess.

Do you have a friend that lives a few hundred miles away? If you do, please do this experiment.

Measure shadows across the country​

Pick two locations that are some distance apart (at least a couple hundred miles from each other and on the same meridian). Grab two sticks or dowels (or other objects) of equal length, two tape measures, and a friend. Each of you will take one stick/dowel/object and one tape measure to your location, stick the object into the ground, and measure the shadow. (For accuracy, you should both take your measurements at the same time of day.)

On a flat Earth, the shadow that is cast by each would be of the same length. However, if you and your friend compare notes, you'll find that one shadow was longer than the other. That's because, due to the curvature of Earth, the sun will hit one part of Earth at one angle and another part of Earth at a different angle even at the same time of day.

This experiment has been around since about 240 B.C., when

You must be logged on to see external links

compared the shadows cast in both Syene—now Aswan, Egypt—and Alexandria on the summer solstice. Eratosthenes had learned of a well in Syene where once a year on the summer solstice, the sun would illuminate the entire bottom of the well and tall buildings and other objects would not cast a shadow. However, he noticed that shadows were being cast on the summer solstice in Alexandria, so he measured the angle of the shadow and found it to be an angle of about 7.2°.

This was literally around over 2000 years ago when they were trying to determine what the shape of the earth was. This is not just some mainstream media conspiracy.
Using the above experiment you can actually work out the curvature of the earth. Here is an

You must be logged on to see external links

on how it is done. You can do this with friends if they live a couple of 100 miles away. You only need some wood that is the same length sticking out of the ground and knowledge of how far away you are as the crow flies.

This experiment is pointless.
It does not prove anything.
It's a story told and sold to the public and is supposed to prove a globe.

It's the same carry on with the Foucault pendulum.

They seem to have all the technology to go to the moon, mars, pluto and take pictures of Earth and all the rest of the storyline.
They can show you pictures and video of people floating in a supposed micro gravity environment is a so called space craft and remotely drive rovers and fly helicopters about mars as well as have billions and billions of miles catered for by a small probe from the 70's just sending pictures back of pluto and what not.....and yet here we are arguing Earth shape by supposedly using a sun and sticks.

Of course people can believe what they want. They can go along with this, obviously but it's more than clear to me what we aren't living on and that is, we are not living upon a globe with all that bumph thrown at us about the space they sell us. IMHO.

 

[fyl2u]

It's a table with a close lit match.
Are you trying to marry this up with a massive distance on Earth?

Interesting.

So with the match experiment, it won't marry up because of the difference in size between a piece of paper and the Earth.

But with the water level experiment, it does marry up despite the difference in size between a handheld container and the Earth.

The WUM lunatic trips over his own argument yet again.

 

[TheDataGuy]

This experiment is pointless.
It does not prove anything.
It's a story told and sold to the public and is supposed to prove a globe.

No, this experiment is exactly the same as the orange just done on the earth. try it, if i am wrong I will agree with you.

It's because the toothpicks are on an orange that is like a ball.

Exactly, that is the whole point of the experiment to prove the earth is also a ball.

Why can't we get to the edge of the circle we live on in your world?

They seem to have all the technology to go to the moon, mars, pluto and take pictures of Earth and all the rest of the storyline.
They can show you pictures and video of people floating in a supposed micro gravity environment is a so called space craft and remotely drive rovers and fly helicopters about mars as well as have billions and billions of miles catered for by a small probe from the 70's just sending pictures back of pluto and what not.....and yet here we are arguing Earth shape by supposedly using a sun and sticks.

They use the sun and sticks because it is a simple experiment that even people from over 2000 years ago understood. And your point here is that if they had photos of a spherical earth, which they do, then why would they need this simple experiment? I think the proof is you?

Oooh oooh, how old is the earth? how was it created?

(Sorry if this is off topic but I have never spoken to someone who believes in the flat earth so I am having fun)

 

[Nukehasslefan]

They're all obvious points, you just refuse to accept them.
You've been shown how and why water conforms to a globe. You refuse to accept it.

No, I haven't been shown.

You've been told what gravity is. You refuse to accept it.

No I haven't.

The moon isn't overcoming anything, it and the earth are orbitting each other as they both orbit the sun.

Then it can't effect tides.

When asked why in your cell model everything is pulled or pushed downwards rather than in any other direction as if by perfectly vertical gravity but not actually by gravity, you avoid the question, mumble something about pressures and densities that makes absolutely zero sense, and we get "well erm....well the densities displace everything an it isn't downwards that's just the way things erm go because erm raisins".

Everything is pushed and it's by atmospheric pressure and any dense mass within it..... and I have more than answered.
You taking notice over that time is another thing.
That's down to you and not my issue.

When asked how your big magic projector is supposed to work regardless of where on the planet you are

I don't believe we are on a planet.

, how a non-globe planet doesn't work mathematically in terns of distances between places,

How do you know this?

how it's possible that people have actually crossed the poles,

How do you know anyone has crossed the poles?

been to space

Can you prove anyone's been into the space they tell us about?

, fly aeroplanes around the southern hemisphere without running out of fuel and crashing despite the distances required being ludicrously massive in order to fit the non-globe model, and it's "ermmm, well it just does."

What planes need to fly around a southern hemisphere? I don't believe there is one and planes have no need to fly around anything.
Simple point to point land mass is all they need to follow.

And so on.

You're a story teller throwing nonsense out and expecting us to accept them as factual, with zero proof.

No, I'm not. It's about paying attention so you don't need to use this line.

I do not hand out anything as factual about my model.
What I do hand out as factual is one thing. Water level and water conforming to the container it is placed in and being level, not curved and certainly not conforming to a ball.

Interesting.

So with the match experiment, it won't marry up because of the difference in size between a piece of paper and the Earth.

But with the water level experiment, it does marry up despite the difference in size between a handheld container and the Earth.

The WUM lunatic trips over his own argument yet again.

That's one hell of a desperate attempt.

No, this experiment is exactly the same as the orange just done on the earth. try it, if i am wrong I will agree with you.


Exactly, that is the whole point of the experiment to prove the earth is also a ball.

Why can't we get to the edge of the circle we live on in your world?


They use the sun and sticks because it is a simple experiment that even people from over 2000 years ago understood. And your point here is that if they had photos of a spherical earth, which they do, then why would they need this simple experiment? I think the proof is you?

Oooh oooh, how old is the earth? how was it created?

(Sorry if this is off topic but I have never spoken to someone who believes in the flat earth so I am having fun)

Let's make this simple.
Go and document this experiment with your sticks and your friend and show me how you get to know you're on the globe you think.

You're telling me a story and you have no proof of it.
You're simply regurgitating what you read up on and believe it to be a truth, which is fine by me but will absolutely not convince me unless you can absolutely prove it to be factual.

Can you do this?

 

[TheDataGuy]

Let's make this simple.
Go and document this experiment with your sticks and your friend and show me how you get to know you're on the globe you think.

You're telling me a story and you have no proof of it.
You're simply regurgitating what you read up on and believe it to be a truth, which is fine by me but will absolutely not convince me unless you can absolutely prove it to be factual.

Can you do this?

But if I did it you wouldn't believe me. That is my point because people have done this but you don't believe it. This is a way for you to put both theories to the test.

 

[fyl2u]

No, I haven't been shown.



No I haven't.


Then it can't effect tides.



Everything is pushed and it's by atmospheric pressure and any dense mass within it..... and I have more than answered.
You taking notice over that time is another thing.
That's down to you and not my issue.


I don't believe we are on a planet.


How do you know this?

How do you know anyone has crossed the poles?

Can you prove anyone's been into the space they tell us about?



What planes need to fly around a southern hemisphere? I don't believe there is one and planes have no need to fly around anything.
Simple point to point land mass is all they need to follow.

No, I'm not. It's about paying attention so you don't need to use this line.

I do not hand out anything as factual about my model.
What I do hand out as factual is one thing. Water level and water conforming to the container it is placed in and being level, not curved and certainly not conforming to a ball.

That's one hell of a desperate attempt.

TL;DR

"La la la la, not listening, la la la la, not listening, la la la la not listening, la la la la dribble dribble dribble dribble la la la la, no proof, no proof, no proof, no proof, your experiments don't work because of the size difference but my small experiments work and are absolute proof even though it's the same size difference, la la la la, dribble dribble, la la la la, not listening, la la la la, not listening."