Put a flat earthier into space

[What A Waster]

Woah. Hogwarts isn't real?

It actually is mate. He's just spreading the lie to throw us off the scent, bit like the globe story.

If it wasn't real then where else did Merlin, Gandalf and Paul Daniels go to school?

 

[DaveH]

The funny thing about most WUMs is they don't seem to understand that many of the people responding to them are enjoying the exercise at least as much as the WUM is.

There is some truth in that and to be honest one of the things I like, being a fan of maths and astronomy, is when it raises questions and I do like to stop and think, can we explain this with maths, or more to the point (because many far more intelligent people have already done it before me years/decades/centuries) before me, can I do it? Also, if the earth was flat what would be observed and how would this would out? I'm the sort of saddo who likes to work out a puzzle and also likes new tools to play with.

I saw my wife working with a mathematical graphing and diagramming tool called Geogebra recently and that is really cool. You can dynamically adjust diagrams and have it work out the angles for you. It is mainly used as a teaching and demonstration tool, but has also featured in various well respected maths YouTube videos recently such as Matt Parker and Numberphile.

From my recent discussion I did knock up the following tool that demonstrates how observation matches spherical (actually circular because I've done it in 2D) mathematics. I find it really satisfying to drag the various bits about. You can change the radius of the planet with one slider and the height of the star with the other. It is worth bearing in mind that the massive scales in astronomy is where the tool starts to fail. The furthest away you can drag the distant star is only about a 10th of the distance of the earth to the sun. The distance range was what I chose to give a balance between making it go very far away while still making the amount you could fit on the screen for lower altitudes usable. The further you move Polaris away the more accurate the results get. If it was to scale, the planet and all the angles you see would be squashed to 1 pixel or less!

You can also drag around A and B, the two observers to see how their horizon changes and how their observed angle to polaris changes.

You must be logged on to see external links

I didn't think I'd get to share it as part of my proof discussion because I knew he can't/won't even try to visualise a globe to test theories. I put it together for my own interest not his. But I know there are few people on this thread who will really like playing with that. If you have any diagramy thing like that you want to look at, it is worth looking at Geogebra. I threw that together in a lunch break and that was the first time I'd really used the sliders and the dynamic nature of it. If I'd not been doing that, I'd have probably been reading covid news while eating my sandwiches.

 

[Tex]

Dave, in the first instance, I think you should do this. Not for the sake of this thread but mainly because it would be very interesting to read.

Secondly, I thought I’d get a jump on this so took this photo last night with my iPhone. Sorry it’s a little out of perspective. Neptune is really much bigger, it’s just it’s further away.

Logon or register to see this image

That photo is clearly a ridiculous fake.


It doesn’t show the glass dome or the icy perimeter. FRAUD!!

 

[Deleted member 6694]

See above. If I get a clear night, I’m happy to provide a video of Juipter for this thread with a full list of equipment and software used. I’m happy to take a photo of the setup and hang a SAFC shirt over it to show I’m not just grabbing random pictures off the net. If it is a lunar transit that is required then there is one of Callisto at 23:43 next Friday.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[payne]

Logon or register to see this image

the rest of us will enjoy the images

 

[Deleted member 6694]

the rest of us will enjoy the images

This!

 

[DaveH]

Logon or register to see this image

I’ll see how the weather goes. I did try the other night, but it quite low to the south at the moment and behind trees, but then cloud rolled in just as it got high enough.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Maybe it would help you if you have a read though this:

You must be logged on to see external links

I've read through it.
It tells me nothing about a global reality from what we actually observe.
The observation from the ship to ship and lower and higher deck simply suggests to me that higher elevation allows more light back to the eye due to angle of view from elevation, rather than a less angle from lower deck that stops light getting back to the eye because of more dense mass of atmosphere.


This makes sense on a flat or flattish ocean, it makes absolutely no sense on a globe. No sense at all.

Let's reason why.
Let's assume two people with scopes were in a crows nest on two separate ships. One going over a supposed curve and the other doing likewise but in the opposite direction..
Both people are looking at the other ship and each other.

If the Earth was a globe then each ship would be said to be disappearing from view, hull first and mast last.
If this was the case then it's pretty clear that for the masts to be last they also have to be angled away from the observer, so this would be the case for both ships and both crows nests and also both observers with scopes.

This means that both observers would actually be looking up at the sky as those ships moved over and down the curve, assuming a level set up of those scopes on the crows nest and taking into account ocean swell which would slightly raise and lower the view a little.

This clearly doesn't happen because they are simply not on an ocean that curves convexly.
They would see each other in real time because they are looking through scopes which are generally levelled and aimed at each other on a fairly level ocean barring some swell, on a calm day. And at a height which offers them a much clearer view than at deck height.


None of the globe stuff makes any sense and these are some of the reasons why.
People are just coerced and coaxed into taking leave of their own logical senses in favour of explanations that are utter gobbledygook. IMHO.

Believeing the earth to be a globe is based on scientific fact, not faith.

It is based entirely on faith.

 

[legend7]

That's what you said.


There is no point in you looking at footage as you'll say it's doctored.
You basically won't look yourself as it kills your argument unless the projector is projecting them rotating like that, but if that's so why not spin the moon.
Easy way for you to see rotation but dismissed.

So no reply to this, a way that you could easily check yourself with no electronics or dodgy lenses.

 

[DaveH]

I've read through it.
It tells me nothing about a global reality from what we actually observe.
The observation from the ship to ship and lower and higher deck simply suggests to me that higher elevation allows more light back to the eye due to angle of view from elevation, rather than a less angle from lower deck that stops light getting back to the eye because of more dense mass of atmosphere.


This makes sense on a flat or flattish ocean, it makes absolutely no sense on a globe. No sense at all.

Let's reason why.
Let's assume two people with scopes were in a crows nest on two separate ships. One going over a supposed curve and the other doing likewise but in the opposite direction..
Both people are looking at the other ship and each other.

If the Earth was a globe then each ship would be said to be disappearing from view, hull first and mast last.
If this was the case then it's pretty clear that for the masts to be last they also have to be angled away from the observer, so this would be the case for both ships and both crows nests and also both observers with scopes.

This means that both observers would actually be looking up at the sky as those ships moved over and down the curve, assuming a level set up of those scopes on the crows nest and taking into account ocean swell which would slightly raise and lower the view a little.

This clearly doesn't happen because they are simply not on an ocean that curves convexly.
They would see each other in real time because they are looking through scopes which are generally levelled and aimed at each other on a fairly level ocean barring some swell, on a calm day. And at a height which offers them a much clearer view than at deck height.


None of the globe stuff makes any sense and these are some of the reasons why.
People are just coerced and coaxed into taking leave of their own logical senses in favour of explanations that are utter gobbledygook. IMHO.

It is based entirely on faith.

Looking up at the sky . Again, that is why you fail. I don’t think you can comprehend quite how big the earth is. Two ships on an ocean where from memory I think the horizon is said to be 3 miles at most. If they were on a planet 200 miles across, the difference in angle would be massive. If the circumference of the earth is about 78000 miles and there is 360 degrees to a circle, then take your distance on the surface, divide that by 78000 x 100 and that is the percentage of the circumference of the earth they are apart. Find that same percentage of 360 degrees and that is the angle they are ‘leaning’ apart by. I can’t be arsed to work it out for you, but you are talking about a fraction of a degree. Same with your other example recently of skyscrapers leaning away from each other. Yes, by a fraction of a degree.

We live on a pretty big and beautiful ball of rock & water.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And that is why you fail. We got a little further than I thought. But you either refuse to accept or just can’t understand the idea of a globe, how big it is and how each observer has their own horizon, the bit of earth around them that looks roughly level to the naked eye from ground level.

If you admit it as a concept the maths works out and demonstrates a globe works, but if you rule it out as a concept and can’t go any further then you discount that proof. Lack of understanding or religious like backing away once you realise something to the contary is afoot, I don’t know.

Once a model is made and handed out to the public as factual, it has to be backed up.
Backing it up is easy as long as people cannot physically disprove it.
This is why the global Earth and all the stuff that goes along with it, plus space and stars and planets, plus all the other added in stories to the model, can be toyed with and made to look like calculations fit.

E=MC2 is one such thing at the other/extreme end of the story scale..
It all starts with the simplest of stuff with an Earth said to be 24,000 + miles in circumference and why it came to that.
From that it gives a reference for certain calculations that fit, to anyone interested, to accept that 24,000 + mile circumference.

And so on and so on.

Then you get to fit the rest in.
When questioned about a moon and sun and why they look the same size in the sky, it comes down to added in gunk, such as, ohhh that's because the sun being as big as it is and the moon being as big as it is, they're also at a distance from each other that just coincidentally matches.

They say the sun is 1.3927 million km in diameter and the moon is 3,474 km and yet they say the sun is 150 million plus km away and the moon is 384,000 plus km away from it and it matches to our eyes.

It just goes on and on and on and being the absorbers and mimics and regurgitators that we are, we generally just follow the story as factual if told by people we believe are experts, yet it's all theoretical in this case, or even misinformation/disinformation....etc. Whichever way people see it..

But what I can say is even though you reject following the proof further, as is your right, you admitted the observational evidence of how the apparent height of polaris changes as you move south. No shape other than a globe has been shown to explain this observable fact.

A globe does not explain it, at all.
A circular set up would explain it much better is terms of walking towards or away from the point of light because, like I said with the street light. If you walk towards or away it changes angle to your vision and you could quite easily play angular calculations from that. On level terrain over a short distance.

It gives us a proof you refuse to accept or can’t understand vs nothing at all.

It gives you nothing of the sort in reality but in your own mind it is a truth and that's fair enough. You follow the global story so I wouldn't expect anything else, as is your right.

I challenge you now, can you put forward a shape where the maths works against observation and balance up the other side?

No, because I'd have to simply make it all up to fit just like it has been for the global model which is passed on as fact.
I am not passing anything I say about my model as factual and to give you genuine calculations would mean I'd have to be sure of everything I mention.
You know that's not doable just as much as you know the global Earth story and space stuff is not doable in terms of factual reality.

Would you trust me if I provided real footage of these planets? Jupiter is just getting to a nice height.

Asking me to trust you is going way overboard.
I wouldn't expect anyone on the internet to trust me so you have to see it from that point.

However, if you have your own footage, let's see.

See above. If I get a clear night, I’m happy to provide a video of Juipter for this thread with a full list of equipment and software used. I’m happy to take a photo of the setup and hang a SAFC shirt over it to show I’m not just grabbing random pictures off the net. If it is a lunar transit that is required then there is one of Callisto at 23:43 next Friday. But I’d like to be clear in advance about what this means and where it will lead. Will it be a proof that the other solar system bodies are globes with other globes in orbit or will it be dismissed while someone wanks themselves silly at the thought of someone putting in a lot of effort only to be dismissed for waffle reasons the next day?

Ok no problem. Let's see your set up and then you can explain what it means in terms of what you will be showing.
Don't do this for me, do it for yourself. You said you were a keen skywatcher so you shouldn't mind adding extra to your stuff, right?
The reason I'm saying this is because I don't want you using it as a battering ram against me if I have massive questions about it, which you know would be coming.

I'm just giving you a heads up and trying to be as honest and as fair as I can.

 

[peachy]

Believeing the earth to be a globe is based on scientific fact, not faith.

It is based entirely on faith.

@Nukehasslefan , have you ever travelled outside of Newcastle? flown or sailed?

(apologies if you have answered this already)

 

[DaveH]

Once a model is made and handed out to the public as factual, it has to be backed up.
Backing it up is easy as long as people cannot physically disprove it.
This is why the global Earth and all the stuff that goes along with it, plus space and stars and planets, plus all the other added in stories to the model, can be toyed with and made to look like calculations fit.

E=MC2 is one such thing at the other/extreme end of the story scale..
It all starts with the simplest of stuff with an Earth said to be 24,000 + miles in circumference and why it came to that.
From that it gives a reference for certain calculations that fit, to anyone interested, to accept that 24,000 + mile circumference.

And so on and so on.

Then you get to fit the rest in.
When questioned about a moon and sun and why they look the same size in the sky, it comes down to added in gunk, such as, ohhh that's because the sun being as big as it is and the moon being as big as it is, they're also at a distance from each other that just coincidentally matches.

They say the sun is 1.3927 million km in diameter and the moon is 3,474 km and yet they say the sun is 150 million plus km away and the moon is 384,000 plus km away from it and it matches to our eyes.

It just goes on and on and on and being the absorbers and mimics and regurgitators that we are, we generally just follow the story as factual if told by people we believe are experts, yet it's all theoretical in this case, or even misinformation/disinformation....etc. Whichever way people see it..

A globe does not explain it, at all.
A circular set up would explain it much better is terms of walking towards or away from the point of light because, like I said with the street light. If you walk towards or away it changes angle to your vision and you could quite easily play angular calculations from that. On level terrain over a short distance.

It gives you nothing of the sort in reality but in your own mind it is a truth and that's fair enough. You follow the global story so I wouldn't expect anything else, as is your right.


No, because I'd have to simply make it all up to fit just like it has been for the global model which is passed on as fact.
I am not passing anything I say about my model as factual and to give you genuine calculations would mean I'd have to be sure of everything I mention.
You know that's not doable just as much as you know the global Earth story and space stuff is not doable in terms of factual reality.


Asking me to trust you is going way overboard.
I wouldn't expect anyone on the internet to trust me so you have to see it from that point.

However, if you have your own footage, let's see.


Ok no problem. Let's see your set up and then you can explain what it means in terms of what you will be showing.
Don't do this for me, do it for yourself. You said you were a keen skywatcher so you shouldn't mind adding extra to your stuff, right?
The reason I'm saying this is because I don't want you using it as a battering ram against me if I have massive questions about it, which you know would be coming.

I'm just giving you a heads up and trying to be as honest and as fair as I can.

Wow, another lot of text. So in summary you can’t/won’t understand, can’t argue about the maths but can rant about stuff I was not talking about, as a deflection.

And if I can produce a video of the shadow of a moon of Jupiter passing over it, you will say “projection, is star wars real?”.

It is a shame you are so set in your ways and can’t understand anything. Everyone has their limits. Scream brainwashing all you like, but you have shown you can’t handle basic proven mathematics that under pins so much in this world (not just astronomy), so you deny it. So you believe others are the failure and not yourself. It is a natural defence so I understand. The thick kids at my school were a bit like that.

 

[Kevj]

Wow, another lot of text. So in summary you can’t/won’t understand, can’t argue about the maths but can rant about stuff I was not talking about, as a deflection.

And if I can produce a video of the shadow of a moon of Jupiter passing over it, you will say “projection, is star wars real?”.

It is a shame you are so set in your ways and can’t understand anything. Everyone has their limits. Scream brainwashing all you like, but you have shown you can’t handle basic proven mathematics that under pins so much in this world (not just astronomy), so you deny it. So you believe others are the failure and not yourself. It is a natural defence so I understand. The thick kids at my school were a bit like that.

Dave, this line is key:

“Backing it up is easy as long as people cannot physically disprove it.”

It’s not possible to disprove globe theory on the basis it’s not theory. It is easily repeatable with basic mathematics on a level early teens could do with a degree of accuracy and where the results corroborate without doubt the geometry of the earth or our very nearest celestial neighbours.

Whilst he is looking for a proof which can’t be found, he will forever be ignorant. In both senses of the word.

 

[Roman maroni]

I've read through it.
It tells me nothing about a global reality from what we actually observe.
The observation from the ship to ship and lower and higher deck simply suggests to me that higher elevation allows more light back to the eye due to angle of view from elevation, rather than a less angle from lower deck that stops light getting back to the eye because of more dense mass of atmosphere.


This makes sense on a flat or flattish ocean, it makes absolutely no sense on a globe. No sense at all.

Let's reason why.
Let's assume two people with scopes were in a crows nest on two separate ships. One going over a supposed curve and the other doing likewise but in the opposite direction..
Both people are looking at the other ship and each other.

If the Earth was a globe then each ship would be said to be disappearing from view, hull first and mast last.
If this was the case then it's pretty clear that for the masts to be last they also have to be angled away from the observer, so this would be the case for both ships and both crows nests and also both observers with scopes.

This means that both observers would actually be looking up at the sky as those ships moved over and down the curve, assuming a level set up of those scopes on the crows nest and taking into account ocean swell which would slightly raise and lower the view a little.

This clearly doesn't happen because they are simply not on an ocean that curves convexly.
They would see each other in real time because they are looking through scopes which are generally levelled and aimed at each other on a fairly level ocean barring some swell, on a calm day. And at a height which offers them a much clearer view than at deck height.


None of the globe stuff makes any sense and these are some of the reasons why.
People are just coerced and coaxed into taking leave of their own logical senses in favour of explanations that are utter gobbledygook. IMHO.

It is based entirely on faith.

Is it fuck you absolute balloon knot.

 

[DaveH]

Dave, this line is key:

“Backing it up is easy as long as people cannot physically disprove it.”

It’s not possible to disprove globe theory on the basis it’s not theory. It is easily repeatable with basic mathematics on a level early teens could do with a degree of accuracy and where the results corroborate without doubt the geometry of the earth or our very nearest celestial neighbours.

Whilst he is looking for a proof which can’t be found, he will forever be ignorant. In both senses of the word.

And it is like the cartoon that someone posted a couple of days ago. If someone just doesn't have the ability or is too stubborn to learn basic maths and work up from there, or worse is so paranoid about the lies THEY are feeding us for unknown reasons, that even basic geometry that initially has nowt to do with the earth shape, has been faked in a repeatable measurable way that has us all so brainwashed into thinking pythagoras, pi and trig actually works, then there is no hope. No matter how much effort people put in, it will always be met with 'nah, I think bullshit'. It takes no effort to deny what is in front of your face. While typing this I've just seen a green woodpecker in the garden. I did, but now can I prove that to you? How can I prove that green woodpeckers exist? That is hard, but doesn't mean they don't exist.

But there is good and bad on these threads. They come up every few months, we all have a few ideas about why CTs think the way they do and have a laugh at how stupid they are, but they would die a death within a few days. At least he keeps them going. Filter through all the waffle and paranoid bullshit, there is some quite good discussion between us normal folk, sparked by a nutter. I spend a lot of time thinking about maths and astronomy, and then someone crops up with an example or a way of looking at something that I never thought of and that sparks a whole load of ideas in my head and a few sketched diagrams on my desk and that is why I keep coming back. Not for the freak show but the underlying discussion and I do get quite interested into why CTs are such paranoid fools.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Looking up at the sky . Again, that is why you fail. I don’t think you can comprehend quite how big the earth is.

Apparently it's 24,000 miles plus in circumference as we're told by the storytellers.
But it could potentially be much bigger than that, depending on how it's looked at.

Two ships on an ocean where from memory I think the horizon is said to be 3 miles at most. If they were on a planet 200 miles across, the difference in angle would be massive. If the circumference of the earth is about 78000 miles and there is 360 degrees to a circle, then take your distance on the surface, divide that by 78000 x 100 and that is the percentage of the circumference of the earth they are apart. Find that same percentage of 360 degrees and that is the angle they are ‘leaning’ apart by. I can’t be arsed to work it out for you, but you are talking about a fraction of a degree. Same with your other example recently of skyscrapers leaning away from each other. Yes, by a fraction of a degree.

We live on a pretty big and beautiful ball of rock & water.

Like I explained to someone earlier.
If you have a scope and you look at someone who is looking at you with their scope......basically so you both see crosshair to crosshair on each other scope, it would be said to be level.

On level ground/water this would be obvious and easily logically acceptable and provable.

However, if you have a fraction of a degree away from level then your scope to scope levelling becomes altered and crosshair to crosshair would be off.
If you are stood on a convex curve then you will never ever be a a point of level set up for two people looking back at each other.
There would always be a tilt back over for both and an obvious angle difference.

You can't argue for minor curve over a massive distance and then try to use a severe curve over a short distance with a pretence of ships going down that curve after just a dozen miles.

Massive contradiction kill it off for obvious reason.

@Nukehasslefan , have you ever travelled outside of Newcastle? flown or sailed? (apologies if you have answered this already)

Yes.

 

[Dodgy]

Think about those early geniuses who died proving the earth was round?, why are some of us going backwards?

Happens in every aspect of life.
Think about all of those scientists and the people who have "done their own research".

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Wow, another lot of text. So in summary you can’t/won’t understand, can’t argue about the maths but can rant about stuff I was not talking about, as a deflection.

Northing to really argue. You can't prove the marths you're using in respect to the global Earth you follow..

And if I can produce a video of the shadow of a moon of Jupiter passing over it, you will say “projection, is star wars real?”.

Let's see what you can do and we can discuss it.

It is a shame you are so set in your ways and can’t understand anything.

The fact I used to believe in a global Earth means I'm definitely not set in my ways.

Everyone has their limits.

Yep and everyone has their own naive weaknesses.

Scream brainwashing all you like, but you have shown you can’t handle basic proven mathematics that under pins so much in this world (not just astronomy), so you deny it.

I don't see any proven mathematics for what you're postulating.

So you believe others are the failure and not yourself.

A failure as to what?

The thick kids at my school were a bit like that.

A little bit like what?

 

[payne]

And it is like the cartoon that someone posted a couple of days ago. If someone just doesn't have the ability or is too stubborn to learn basic maths and work up from there, or worse is so paranoid about the lies THEY are feeding us for unknown reasons, that even basic geometry that initially has nowt to do with the earth shape, has been faked in a repeatable measurable way that has us all so brainwashed into thinking pythagoras, pi and trig actually works, then there is no hope. No matter how much effort people put in, it will always be met with 'nah, I think bullshit'. It takes no effort to deny what is in front of your face. While typing this I've just seen a green woodpecker in the garden. I did, but now can I prove that to you? How can I prove that green woodpeckers exist? That is hard, but doesn't mean they don't exist.

But there is good and bad on these threads. They come up every few months, we all have a few ideas about why CTs think the way they do and have a laugh at how stupid they are, but they would die a death within a few days. At least he keeps them going. Filter through all the waffle and paranoid bullshit, there is some quite good discussion between us normal folk, sparked by a nutter. I spend a lot of time thinking about maths and astronomy, and then someone crops up with an example or a way of looking at something that I never thought of and that sparks a whole load of ideas in my head and a few sketched diagrams on my desk and that is why I keep coming back. Not for the freak show but the underlying discussion and I do get quite interested into why CTs are such paranoid fools.

Don't you feel a bit miffed that some conspiracy theorist just dismisses everything you've ever learned or put into practice in your work and life? Does it not frustrate that no matter how far you go into depth the more he's going to not understand and tell you you know nothing and are either parroting a lie or a fool for believing the globe earth myth?

I don't know how you have the patience to put the effort into writing stuff out in great detail.

Looking forward to the photos if you do them!