Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes, to get from the far east to the states.

Ok.
I thought it was too dangerous for planes to attempt this.
You sure the planes didn't skirt this?

A challenge for @Nukehasslefan? You preach that people have to go and discover things for themselves and not rely on stories of others, doctored footage or the results of CGI artists. Why not look at doing this? There are plenty of web resources out there, and it would answer things once and for all? I think @What A Waster makes an excellent point and given I looked into this a few years ago, I should have thought of that really.

What exactly am I supposed to be looking for?

Apart from the hundreds of people who have seen said s(p)inning globe from space, taken pictures, done experiments etc.

Such as?

then of course you just have to look at the planets through a telescope and see that the planets are indeed not flat, or is it just earth?

I don't believe any Earth is flat. I believe it's a cell.
You see one face of the moon. Does this not tell you anything?

 

[What A Waster]

There's no deflection. I gave you an answer but I will elaborate.

Many people have done the experiment to prove water level, it's just not accepted by those who believe we live on a spinning Earth in a space vacuum with the Earth apparently 2/3rds water that just stays on and level on a calm day.

It's like showing a straight stick placing a level on it and someone saying it's banana shaped but it only looks like a straight stick.

Nuts...but, it's massive indoctrinated belief systems. And the sad thing is we're all part of it in all kinds of ways. In my opinion.

Why are you talking about water levels?

I asked you why the flatties haven't flown a balloon up to a height where the curve is visible and proven there is no curve visible.
It's simple and cheap to do.
There's videos on YouTube of various people flying balloons up to show the curve. The Flatties could repeat the same experiment and surely they'd find no curve in their footage.

Why talk about water levels when I'm showing you a video of the curve and asking why flatties don't/won't/haven't done the same experiment?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That the earth is a globe

It's not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon.

 

[DaveH]

The proof is right there with water level.
Observable, testable and repeatable.

Absolutely, just like the sun and the moon reflections.

Do planes fly over the pacific ocean?

Accepted so far: Night & Day, stars which can appear low or high in the sky.

So given they appear to an observer as low or high in the sky, if you levelled a telescope and it had a scale on the side showing accurately the angle it was pointing up or down, we could accurately measure an angle between the horizon and straight up, agreed?

 

[Hend79]

Ok.
I thought it was too dangerous for planes to attempt this.
You sure the planes didn't skirt this?

You are right but by being so you have kind of proved the Earth is an actual globe. The reason they dont fly direct over the pacific ocean is because it would be too far for a plane to travel between one land mass to the next so they fly over it on a more curved path which could only be possible on a globe.

The primary reason airplanes don’t fly over the Pacific Ocean is because curved routes are shorter than straight routes. Flat maps are somewhat confusing because the Earth itself isn’t flat. Rather, it’s spherical. As a result, straight routes don’t offer the shortest distance between two locations. Whether a commercial airline is flying from the United States to Asia or elsewhere, it will have the fastest and most fuel-efficient flight by performing a curved rout.

 

[What A Waster]

You are right but by being so you have kind of proved the Earth is an actual globe. The reason they dont fly direct over the pacific ocean is because it would be too far for a plane to travel between one land mass to the next so they fly over it on a more curved path which could only be possible on a globe.

The primary reason airplanes don’t fly over the Pacific Ocean is because curved routes are shorter than straight routes. Flat maps are somewhat confusing because the Earth itself isn’t flat. Rather, it’s spherical. As a result, straight routes don’t offer the shortest distance between two locations. Whether a commercial airline is flying from the United States to Asia or elsewhere, it will have the fastest and most fuel-efficient flight by performing a curved rout.

Same as when you go to new york or florida you go via Greenland and down the east coast.
Because up and over makes it shorter. Makes me think these people haven't flown long haul.

 

[0verlord44]

Ok.
I thought it was too dangerous for planes to attempt this.
You sure the planes didn't skirt this?

What exactly am I supposed to be looking for?


Such as?

I don't believe any Earth is flat. I believe it's a cell.
You see one face of the moon. Does this not tell you anything?

A telescope tells me its not flat pal, an infant can distinguish such

Enough of this nonsense, Somebody obviously told you that you are entitled to your opinion, but you shouldn't be.
You answer every question with a question, show no 'proof' and default to ''its my opinion'' like all good conspiracy theorists
Trust me on this, your opinion, is bollocks.
What isn't bollocks is scientific PROOF. Which i hope you teach your children and not any off this silliness.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why are you talking about water levels?

I asked you why the flatties haven't flown a balloon up to a height where the curve is visible and proven there is no curve visible.

Flying a balloon up to a height is not going to prove anything. Do you know what they say about the supposed global Earth?
If the earth were the size of an apple, the International Space Station would orbit just 2.7 mm from the surface.
And you think someone's going to show a curvature, naturally?
A fish eye lens will do a fine job of it.
Fish eye lens can make anything curved.

It's simple and cheap to do.
There's videos on YouTube of various people flying balloons up to show the curve. The Flatties could repeat the same experiment and surely they'd find no curve in their footage.

There's plenty of pictures showing no curvature.

Why talk about water levels when I'm showing you a video of the curve and asking why flatties don't/won't/haven't done the same experiment?

Because water levels kill of the fiction of a high altitude view of a supposed globe.

I could also argue for the outline of the dome but I won't go into any of that.
Fish eye lens and distortion is a key factor in a lot of this type of stuff.
It's used time and time again and the answer is still the same. It proves nothing.


As for flat Earthers not doing it. I wouldn't know, don't check up.

Accepted so far: Night & Day, stars which can appear low or high in the sky.

So given they appear to an observer as low or high in the sky, if you levelled a telescope and it had a scale on the side showing accurately the angle it was pointing up or down, we could accurately measure an angle between the horizon and straight up, agreed?

Go on I want to see where you're going with this.

You are right but by being so you have kind of proved the Earth is an actual globe. The reason they dont fly direct over the pacific ocean is because it would be too far for a plane to travel between one land mass to the next so they fly over it on a more curved path which could only be possible on a globe.

Or simply go point to point over a circle with a bit of minor banking when necessary.

It certainly does not prove any globe....at all.

The primary reason airplanes don’t fly over the Pacific Ocean is because curved routes are shorter than straight routes.

So walking up and over a hill is easier than walking through a tunnel under it....right?
Because this is basically what the scenario would be if that were true.

Flat maps are somewhat confusing because the Earth itself isn’t flat.

So why use them?

Rather, it’s spherical.

I beg to differ.

As a result, straight routes don’t offer the shortest distance between two locations. Whether a commercial airline is flying from the United States to Asia or elsewhere, it will have the fastest and most fuel-efficient flight by performing a curved rout.

But the curved route doesn't have to be up and over it can be along and around....right?

 

[DaveH]

A fish eye lens will do a fine job of it.
Fish eye lens can make anything curved.


Go on I want to see where you're going with this.

So why not build a balloon without a fish eye lens on it?

Ok, so we can measure the angle between the stars and the horizon accurately using a telescope with an appropriate scale.

Now more terrestrial coordinates. Do you accept the concept of 'north', a direction that no matter where you are on the planet a compass point will always point towards the north? No matter if the earth was a globe or disk, people facing north are essentially looking towards the same point on the planet no matter where they are. This point in the middle we call the north poll. Everyone has the same north pole.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

A telescope tells me its not flat pal, an infant can distinguish such

A telescope magnifies what your eye sees as small. That's it. It does not offer any more distance, just magnification. No different than a microscope doesn't offer any more distance to the viewed object on a plate, just a magnification of it.

Enough of this nonsense, Somebody obviously told you that you are entitled to your opinion, but you shouldn't be.

I should be, just like you're entitled to yours.

You answer every question with a question, show no 'proof' and default to ''its my opinion'' like all good conspiracy theorists

Feel free to think that but I'm getting no proof of reality from people like yourself, except to tell me you are right and I'm wrong, or a nutter or not entitled to an opinion....etc.....etc....etc.

That's not a proof against what I'm saying.

Trust me on this, your opinion, is bollocks.

Then I cannot trust you.

What isn't bollocks is scientific PROOF.

Agreed.
And this is what we are trying to establish.

Which i hope you teach your children and not any off this silliness.

My children are all grown up and working for their living. They do their own thing independent from me and have their own minds.

So why not build a balloon without a fish eye lens on it?

No need. I can tell it's not a spinning globe with much simpler stuff. Some of which I've said many many a time and is provable to anyone who wishes to try it out without peer pressure.

Ok, so we can measure the angle between the stars and the horizon accurately using a telescope with an appropriate scale.

Now more terrestrial coordinates. Do you accept the concept of 'north', a direction that no matter where you are on the planet a compass point will always point towards the north?

I could sort of go with that. I believe the compass magnetism allows the pointer to follow that track to towards the central vortex...but we won't go into that.

Carry on.

No matter if the earth was a globe or disk, people facing north are essentially looking towards the same point on the planet no matter where they are.

Yeah I'll go with that with a compass pointer.

This point in the middle we call the north poll. Everyone has the same north pole.

Ok everyone has the same pointer towards the centre.

Carry on.

 

[What A Waster]

So why not build a balloon without a fish eye lens on it?

Ok, so we can measure the angle between the stars and the horizon accurately using a telescope with an appropriate scale.

Now more terrestrial coordinates. Do you accept the concept of 'north', a direction that no matter where you are on the planet a compass point will always point towards the north? No matter if the earth was a globe or disk, people facing north are essentially looking towards the same point on the planet no matter where they are. This point in the middle we call the north poll. Everyone has the same north pole.

You're wasting your time here.

It'll be due to atmospheric distortion, or reflections appearing differently on the concave ice dome

 

[Hend79]

Or simply go point to point over a circle with a bit of minor banking when necessary.

It certainly does not prove any globe....at all.

So walking up and over a hill is easier than walking through a tunnel under it....right?
Because this is basically what the scenario would be if that were true.


So why use them?


I beg to differ.

But the curved route doesn't have to be up and over it can be along and around....right?

Wrong on every single point, well done

But the curved route doesn't have to be up and over it can be along and around....right?

And also no, because if the Earth was flat and you went on a curved route it would take even longer and use up even more fuel. On a globe it doesnt.

 

[DaveH]

No need. I can tell it's not a spinning globe with much simpler stuff. Some of which I've said many many a time and is provable to anyone who wishes to try it out without peer pressure.



I could sort of go with that. I believe the compass magnetism allows the pointer to follow that track to towards the central vortex...but we won't go into that.

First bit, so you rule out an experiment which would allow you to see the curve of the earth for yourself because you have already decided there is no need? And you say those who know it is a globe follow it blindly like a religion and refuse to budge? I think that is showing you are in the non budge mindset.

Anyway, we have agreed on night and day, stars, can measure the angle from the horizon to the stars and we agree on a common direction of north which applies on whatever shaped planet we are on and we are accepting it could be either at this point. Going better than I thought so far, but now into observations.

Do you accept that one of the stars we call Polaris or the North Star, that from the point of view of an observer, all other stars seem to rotate around this (for those in the area we call the northern hemisphere, lets ignore south of the equator for now)? Do you also accept that for each observer, this star appears due north?

 

[Yam]

Hollywood didn’t exist 3 thousand years ago though did it?
The globe model was accepted by most thousands of years ago based on observation and mathematics.

I do believe their is s god but I also believe the universe is very very different to what we know now.
And religion has proven to be very dangerous

You've given him some ammunition here mind by saying you believe in a God. In the same way he apparently believes in his supercell earth with no evidence, you're doing something very similar with your belief in a God with no evidence.
He says all of the evidence for a global earth is made up by story tellers yet the same is true for God.
Not wanting to turn this into a religious debate but you opened the door.

 

[GK]

First bit, so you rule out an experiment which would allow you to see the curve of the earth for yourself because you have already decided there is no need? And you say those who know it is a globe follow it blindly like a religion and refuse to budge? I think that is showing you are in the non budge mindset.

Anyway, we have agreed on night and day, stars, can measure the angle from the horizon to the stars and we agree on a common direction of north which applies on whatever shaped planet we are on and we are accepting it could be either at this point. Going better than I thought so far, but now into observations.

Do you accept that one of the stars we call Polaris or the North Star, that from the point of view of an observer, all other stars seem to rotate around this (for those in the area we call the northern hemisphere, lets ignore south of the equator for now)? Do you also accept that for each observer, this star appears due north?

This is where he stops answering. We had a similar discussion a couple of years ago and as soon as I brought the movement of stars into it, he literally disappeared. It was then I knew he was wumming. What you're talking about now is kryptonite for flat earthers.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Wrong on every single point, well done

How about you show me why.

And also no, because if the Earth was flat and you went on a curved route it would take even longer and use up even more fuel. On a globe it doesnt.

How do you work that out?

First bit, so you rule out an experiment which would allow you to see the curve of the earth for yourself because you have already decided there is no need?

No. I have no need to do such an experiment because it proves nothing either way.
The simpler experiments do prove Earth not being a spinning globe.

And you say those who know it is a globe follow it blindly like a religion and refuse to budge?

No. I say those who believe it is a globe do so because they are basically schooled into that thought process, just like I was.

I think that is showing you are in the non budge mindset.

Nahhh. I'm in the prove it mindset and nothing has been shown to be factual.

Anyway, we have agreed on night and day, stars, can measure the angle from the horizon to the stars and we agree on a common direction of north which applies on whatever shaped planet we are on and we are accepting it could be either at this point. Going better than I thought so far, but now into observations.

Do you accept that one of the stars we call Polaris or the North Star, that from the point of view of an observer, all other stars seem to rotate around this (for those in the area we call the northern hemisphere, lets ignore south of the equator for now)? Do you also accept that for each observer, this star appears due north?

Yeah I'll go along with that.

This is where he stops answering. We had a similar discussion a couple of years ago and as soon as I brought the movement of stars into it, he literally disappeared. It was then I knew he was wumming. What you're talking about now is kryptonite for flat earthers.

Really?

 

[Hend79]

How about you show me why.

How do you work that out?

You are clearly too thick to understand. You cant prove your ridiculous nonsense either whereas people on here have given you plenty of proof to show the Earth is a globe. You are an absolute simpleton.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Just done a quick google, and it says with a viewing field of 60° or wider you'd be able to detect the curvature of the earth from 35k feet.

Weather balloons can go as high as 24 miles before they burst.

You must be logged on to see media items

So here's quite an easy experiment for the Flatties to do to disprove a globe. Send a weather balloon up with a camera, doesn't even have to be a fish eye lens.

Them divvies could easily start a go fund me for the best camera and balloon available.
How have they not done this already?

People need to make their minds up.

Many people use this man as their go to science guy.
Is he telling lies?
Is he mistaken?

Are the Leicester students' experiment flawed or is it right and they stump NDT?

Or are they both wrong and it's not am spinning globe?

You must be logged on to see media items

You are clearly too thick to understand.

Of course. It's the go to reply for a few on here.
Can you explain it or not?You don't need to quote me to explain it.
Explain it to someone on here. Someone who you think is capable of understanding and I can just observe the explanation.

You cant prove your ridiculous nonsense either

What ridiculous nonsense do I need to prove?

whereas people on here have given you plenty of proof to show the Earth is a globe.

You can say it 10 times or 100 times...even a million times and the answer will be the same until someone shows real proof.
There is no proof of a spinning globe.

You are an absolute simpleton.

And you're absolutely welcome to that thought and any other but you must understand it does not lend you any credence to a proof for a global spinning Earth...right?

 

[Hend79]

People need to make their minds up.

Many people use this man as their go to science guy.
Is he telling lies?
Is he mistaken?

Are the Leicester students' experiment flawed or is it right and they stump NDT?

Or are they both wrong and it's not am spinning globe?

You must be logged on to see media items

Of course. It's the go to reply for a few on here.
Can you explain it or not?You don't need to quote me to explain it.
Explain it to someone on here. Someone who you think is capable of understanding and I can just observe the explanation.


What ridiculous nonsense do I need to prove?

You can say it 10 times or 100 times...even a million times and the answer will be the same until someone shows real proof.
There is no proof of a spinning globe.


And you're absolutely welcome to that thought and any other but you must understand it does not lend you any credence to a proof for a global spinning Earth...right?

I give up, you are too thick. You spout utter nonsense without having anything to back it up yet you dismiss all of the actual proof out there from well respected people. Please just piss off you absolute loon, you know absolutely nothing

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I give up, you are too thick.
You spout utter nonsense without having anything to back it up yet you dismiss all of the actual proof out there from well respected people.
Please just piss off you absolute loon, you know absolutely nothing

Jump back in if you find any real proof for a spinning globe.