Put a flat earthier into space

[The Snockerty Friddle]

He's talking about a sea wave.



There is no gravity.

He isn't, and there is.

 

[fyl2u]

I'd expect the compass to point to the centre in all direction around a circle.

Right, so we agree that Krakatoa isn't the centre of the world, correct?

Therefore out of the two possibilities that work with the observational data of the circular pressure wave eventually converging back on Krakatoa afterwards, we can rule out the "circular world that has Krakatoa at the centre".

I would expect any displacement of water to be immediately filled, which means any explosion or dropped rock or whatever dropped into water, becomes the epicentre.

Exactly.

The force from that would naturally cause a wave effect outwards until that wave effect dissipated by either losing energy all around or hitting shore/land.

Correct, if it's a border soft enough to dissipate it. Or if it's a hard border it'll bounce back with slightly less energy.

If a pond or sea is not circular and the ripple spans out to shore, it'll hit the shortest piece of land first with the next shortest to follow...and so on.

Correct. And the wave that bounces back from the shore would no longer be a circle centred upon the epicentre.

For example if the shore were a straight line, perfectly flat to the wavefront, then the returning wave would still essentially be an expanding circle but reversed.

I.E.

o)))))))| - initial wave going outward toward the boundary
o((((((| - returning wave coming back from the boundary

...more or less, if you'll excuse the crude text drawing.


Whereas if the border were circular, with Krakatoa (or the stone being dropped) at the exact centre of the circle, then the wave would bounce back still circle-shaped and still with Krakatoa at the centre, shrinking back to the source as it went along.

I.E.

-->
o)))))))) - initial wave going outward toward the circular boundary

<--
o)))))))) - returning wave coming back from the circular boundary

...but again, this would only happen if Krakatoa were in the absolute centre of a circular "cell" world, i.e. if Krakatoa were the absolute north pole in the cell world, towards which all compasses point. We know this isn't the case, because compasses don't all point to Krakatoa, therefore because of the observed data of Krakatoa's pressure wave, we can discount the possibility that we live in a perfectly circular flat/cell world.

Therefore the only remaining possible shape that would fit the data that showed that the pressure wave did actually converge back on Krakatoa in a circle-shape is a spheroid world, where the wave made its way all the way across to the opposite side of the spheroid and back again.

If the explosion is so big that it actually hits shore with a massive wave effect like we see in rough seas then it will naturally recede but not all the way back to the centre.

Well, that depends on how much energy is in the wave, how far away the epicentre is from the shore, and how much energy it is losing along the way.

No offence but this isn't an argument for any globe or other.

Actually it is.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How on earth can humans learn anything in his world view. Learning anything that was previously discovered is null and void for the next person. Appeals to authority and all that.

I think this is a case of a person not being intelligent enough to know they aren't intelligent.

I hope he doesn't use his not appealing to authority logic next time he's ill.

What do you know about the shape of the world you live in?

Even though the sun looks absolutely nothing like the moon and you can see craters on the moon, surely if this was a reflection of the same energy source you wouldn't see static craters.

Correct the sun looks nothing like the moon...but then I'd expect that from a reflection.
Do you have a security light on your home?
If you have one where there's a planished reflector at the back of the halogen bulb then go into your garden and look directly at the light.
Now go towards the house and look up into that light. You can see inside of it where you couldn't with direct light.
Just think of the sun reflecting over the dome and showing a much less glaring reflection of that reflection.

You still never came back to explain that if you (yes even you) looked at say Jupiter you'd be able to see it rotating.

I've never witnessed it rotating. I'm still waiting for someone to show me jupiter like the pictures we get shown.

So if was in a pitch black room and blasted some speakers I would see light?

Not unless you ramped them right up until the wires glowed.
It's all about the vibration/friction and frequency and force applied which determines whether you see light.

Right, so we agree that Krakatoa isn't the centre of the world, correct?

Agreed.

Therefore out of the two possibilities that work with the observational data of the circular pressure wave eventually converging back on Krakatoa afterwards, we can rule out the "circular world that has Krakatoa at the centre".

Who observed this data?

Correct, if it's a border soft enough to dissipate it. Or if it's a hard border it'll bounce back with slightly less energy.



Correct. And the wave that bounces back from the shore would no longer be a circle centred upon the epicentre.

For example if the shore were a straight line, perfectly flat to the wavefront, then the returning wave would still essentially be an expanding circle but reversed.

I.E.

o)))))))| - initial wave going outward toward the boundary
o((((((| - returning wave coming back from the boundary

...more or less, if you'll excuse the crude text drawing.


Whereas if the border were circular, with Krakatoa (or the stone being dropped) at the exact centre of the circle, then the wave would bounce back still circle-shaped and still with Krakatoa at the centre, shrinking back to the source as it went along.

I.E.

-->
o)))))))) - initial wave going outward toward the circular boundary

<--
o)))))))) - returning wave coming back from the circular boundary

No. The returning wave must be coming back in the opposite curve to the one shown.

...but again, this would only happen if Krakatoa were in the absolute centre of a circular "cell" world, i.e. if Krakatoa were the absolute north pole in the cell world, towards which all compasses point. We know this isn't the case, because compasses don't all point to Krakatoa, therefore because of the observed data of Krakatoa's pressure wave, we can discount the possibility that we live in a perfectly circular flat/cell world.

Therefore the only remaining possible shape that would fit the data that showed that the pressure wave did actually converge back on Krakatoa in a circle-shape is a spheroid world, where the wave made its way all the way across to the opposite side of the spheroid and back again.



Well, that depends on how much energy is in the wave, how far away the epicentre is from the shore, and how much energy it is losing along the way.



Actually it is.

This is no argument for anything.

 

[payne]

What do you know about the shape of the world you live in?

Correct the sun looks nothing like the moon...but then I'd expect that from a reflection.
Do you have a security light on your home?
If you have one where there's a planished reflector at the back of the halogen bulb then go into your garden and look directly at the light.
Now go towards the house and look up into that light. You can see inside of it where you couldn't with direct light.
Just think of the sun reflecting over the dome and showing a much less glaring reflection of that reflection.




I've never witnessed it rotating. I'm still waiting for someone to show me jupiter like the pictures we get shown.


Not unless you ramped them right up until the wires glowed.
It's all about the vibration/friction and frequency and force applied which determines whether you see light.

Agreed.

Who observed this data?

No. The returning wave must be coming back in the opposite curve to the one shown.


This is no argument for anything.

I've used my own senses.

 

[legend7]

What do you know about the shape of the world you live in?

Correct the sun looks nothing like the moon...but then I'd expect that from a reflection.
Do you have a security light on your home?
If you have one where there's a planished reflector at the back of the halogen bulb then go into your garden and look directly at the light.
Now go towards the house and look up into that light. You can see inside of it where you couldn't with direct light.
Just think of the sun reflecting over the dome and showing a much less glaring reflection of that reflection.




I've never witnessed it rotating. I'm still waiting for someone to show me jupiter like the pictures we get shown.


Not unless you ramped them right up until the wires glowed.
It's all about the vibration/friction and frequency and force applied which determines whether you see light.

Agreed.

Who observed this data?

No. The returning wave must be coming back in the opposite curve to the one shown.


This is no argument for anything.

With a decent telescope you can clearly see craters on the moon and Jupiter spinning.
You think you'd try just to prove us wrong.
You really are absolutely mental like, it's hilarious, but slightly worrying

 

[Nukehasslefan]

With a decent telescope you can clearly see craters on the moon and Jupiter spinning.

Do you have any pictures of jupiter spinning? The moon you see does have what looks like craters on it. But are they really craters or something else?

You think you'd try just to prove us wrong.

I'm waiting for images of jupiter from some of you lot.

You really are absolutely mental like, it's hilarious, but slightly worrying

You're entitled to think that. I'm ok with it.

 

[legend7]

Do you have any pictures of jupiter spinning? The moon you see does have what looks like craters on it. But are they really craters or something else?


I'm waiting for images of jupiter from some of you lot.

You're entitled to think that. I'm ok with it.

Any images you see you just say are doctored

 

[Hend79]

Do you have any pictures of jupiter spinning? The moon you see does have what looks like craters on it. But are they really craters or something else?


I'm waiting for images of jupiter from some of you lot.

You're entitled to think that. I'm ok with it.

Please get some help, you are a clueless clown.

 

[DaveH]

Some days I see the amount of effort and think this has to be real.

Other days like today I think it has to be a wind up account. But then someone has woken up and said “right, these strangers on the internet think I’m stupid. I’m going to make them think I’m even stupider”.

Today with these pressure waves that nobody has ever detected it is almost like:
That grass is red
It’s green
Well movement light arc kibble, sound wave catnip creosote means it is red
It’s green
All you need to do is view it through a home made pinhole camera projecting onto a weetabix box to see grass is red
It’s green
It is a simple experiment, see this youtube, and you will see it is red
It’s green
Red comes from the invisible sky vortex which defracts the sound off the ground splitting it into percussion which hits your eyes as red grass
It’s green
Yiu have been brainwashed into thinking it is green, they drum it into you at school, where as I’m a free thinker and can see it is red.
It’s green, it is documented everywhere as green, do you have any evidence of red grass anywhere
The smell when it is cut it is red. You have such a weak argument
It’s green……

 

[nahwee]

He's talking about a sea wave.

I'm not. I'm talking about a wave of increased barometric pressure - air.

 

[payne]

Some days I see the amount of effort and think this has to be real.

Other days like today I think it has to be a wind up account. But then someone has woken up and said “right, these strangers on the internet think I’m stupid. I’m going to make them think I’m even stupider”.

Today with these pressure waves that nobody has ever detected it is almost like:
That grass is red
It’s green
Well movement light arc kibble, sound wave catnip creosote means it is red
It’s green
All you need to do is view it through a home made pinhole camera projecting onto a weetabix box to see grass is red
It’s green
It is a simple experiment, see this youtube, and you will see it is red
It’s green
Red comes from the invisible sky vortex which defracts the sound off the ground splitting it into percussion which hits your eyes as red grass
It’s green
Yiu have been brainwashed into thinking it is green, they drum it into you at school, where as I’m a free thinker and can see it is red.
It’s green, it is documented everywhere as green, do you have any evidence of red grass anywhere
The smell when it is cut it is red. You have such a weak argument
It’s green……

you've got no proof. everything from authority. you've wasted your time being educated throughout school and university and have been duped....probably because you are stupid. you've basically wasted your life. he's figured everything out having only a bath and sucking some air out a jar by himself.....musings you see!

 

[fyl2u]

No. The returning wave must be coming back in the opposite curve to the one shown.

How?

 

[DaveH]

you've got no proof. everything from authority. you've wasted your time being educated throughout school and university and have been duped....probably because you are stupid. you've basically wasted your life. he's figured everything out having only a bath and sucking some air out a jar by himself.....musings you see!

I do like the cop out of ‘everything from authority’. One time when I mentioned mathematical proofs, he said it was based on maths drummed into me. So unless I had figured out pi and trigonometry for myself I couldn’t use it. Naturally I tried using a charcoal stick and my own papyrus (made from home grown potato skins and my own paper invention), and my own language because to use paper, pencil and English would be cheating. Even though paper and pencil are proven to work….nah, leaning on authoritative writing sources.

Of course it is all deflection. Someone makes a good reasonable point that is hard to argue with, but what about the font size. Focus on the most trivial aspect and the major issue goes unnoticed. It is actually a large part of Boris’s success.

 

[payne]

I do like the cop out of ‘everything from authority’. One time when I mentioned mathematical proofs, he said it was based on maths drummed into me. So unless I had figured out pi and trigonometry for myself I couldn’t use it. Naturally I tried using a charcoal stick and my own papyrus (made from home grown potato skins and my own paper invention), and my own language because to use paper, pencil and English would be cheating. Even though paper and pencil are proven to work….nah, leaning on authoritative writing sources.

Of course it is all deflection. Someone makes a good reasonable point that is hard to argue with, but what about the font size. Focus on the most trivial aspect and the major issue goes unnoticed. It is actually a large part of Boris’s success.

all the maths works but that's part of the fiction. you'd actually get the real answer (which would be exactly the same) if you used the air pressure model. you're just using the wrong one which gives the same answers. it's well complicated for someone like me who doesn't know which model to use to provide the same answer. i seed my knowledge to authority about things I'm not clever enough to understand..........that's my biggest fault.

I hope that makes as much sense as the cell authority, as I know i can't use his authority to inform any of my musings

 

[What A Waster]

I must say, I'm glad I asked the tidal question.

It's effectively handed him a bigger shovel to dig himself further into this and we now know about dome waves causing pressure every 12 hours, which is different to the observable pressure which creates weather systems.

It's very interesting to see where it can go next. Whole new things being invented to back up the denial of a globe that essentially is pinned on 'water conforms to the shape of the container'. Everything else is fitted around this.

 

[payne]

I must say, I'm glad I asked the tidal question.

It's effectively handed him a bigger shovel to dig himself further into this and we now know about dome waves causing pressure every 12 hours, which is different to the observable pressure which creates weather systems.

It's very interesting to see where it can go next. Whole new things being invented to back up the denial of a globe that essentially is pinned on 'water conforms to the shape of the container'. Everything else is fitted around this.

no evidence mate. please provide proof. proof though is only acceptable if it has never been uttered before as that is simply from authority. anything that has been mentioned before in the history of human existence is null and void

 

[nahwee]

Why would something that has an epicentre explosion end up at one point?

Exactly. Why would it if the earth was’nt a globe.

Unless you're trying to tell me that a spinning Earth ball is the reason.

That’s what I’m saying.

If this is the case can you explain a bit further as to how this would be happening.

My first sentence explains it.

Let's put this into real perspective.
If I dropped a rock into a pond that rock immediately becomes the centre.
It becomes the centre because the water spans out circular and the waves from it span out until they dissipate on their own or by hitting a barrier/land.

I’m not talking about water, I’m talking about a wave of air pressure, recorded on barographs.

The confusion arose when you posted:

`` If you sit in a bath and smash your fist into the water you will move it away in all directions and it will come right back to equalise the area you forced away.``

Whose word do we take for this?
I've never looked it up and have no need to. It's just another piece of history that's added in as some kind of proof of a globe.
I'd like to know the full explanation for it. Can you obige?

If you’d really like to know answers and explanations you could easily find all this information yourself.

I could help, but I won’t. Not when you dismiss everything as ``another piece of history that’s added in as some proof of a globe``

As you say yourself `` You're entitled to think that. I'm ok with it.``

 

[DaveH]

all the maths works but that's part of the fiction. you'd actually get the real answer (which would be exactly the same) if you used the air pressure model. you're just using the wrong one which gives the same answers. it's well complicated for someone like me who doesn't know which model to use to provide the same answer. i seed my knowledge to authority about things I'm not clever enough to understand..........that's my biggest fault.

I hope that makes as much sense as the cell authority, as I know i can't use his authority to inform any of my musings

That is the thing I find with the conspiracy nutters. Disregard all knowledge as part of the lie, question the proofs and evidence. Then replace it completely with something of which there is no evidence or even evidence against. Then under no account put this new model up to the same scrutiny, because it falls down. They literally invent stuff with no experimentation, no proof, just sit and make up a story and stick to it. Ask them for details and they either deflect or attack the common idea, basically because theirs falls down.

It is like doubting your house is going to stay standing, then screaming at everyone that modern buildings are a con. so you pull it down and make a new one from marzipan because you had an idea one day that it would be more robust than brick and slate.

 

[fyl2u]

As you say yourself `` You're entitled to think that. I'm ok with it.``

I'm not OK with it at all. I feel like it is my moral duty to educate those who would spread misinformation that might confuse the issue for other people.

This kind of thing, if left unchecked, slows down the progress of human understanding.

If even one additional person reading this thread ends up thinking "actually, there might be something in this flat earth thing" then it has already spread to one extra person too many.

 

[payne]

That is the thing I find with the conspiracy nutters. Disregard all knowledge as part of the lie, question the proofs and evidence. Then replace it completely with something of which there is no evidence or even evidence against. Then under no account put this new model up to the same scrutiny, because it falls down. They literally invent stuff with no experimentation, no proof, just sit and make up a story and stick to it. Ask them for details and they either deflect or attack the common idea, basically because theirs falls down.

It is like doubting your house is going to stay standing, then screaming at everyone that modern buildings are a con. so you pull it down and make a new one from marzipan because you had an idea one day that it would be more robust than brick and slate.

as long as you thought marzipan first then your musings are probably fine. if the next person believes in your marzipan musings now we have a problem. maybe they should use gingerbread or something

I'm not OK with it at all. I feel like it is my moral duty to educate those who would spread misinformation that might confuse the issue for other people.

This kind of thing, if left unchecked, slows down the progress of human understanding.

If even one additional person reading this thread ends up thinking "actually, there might be something in this flat earth thing" then it has already spread to one extra person too many.

it's a cell pal.............because