• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


What A Waster said:
Now I'm no scientist, but doesn't a concave mirror reflect light from whichever angle towards a central point. For your central energy source to reflect heat and light from the centre out towards the edges the dome would have to be convex.
How can it do that?
Click to expand...
No they don't. It depends on what angle they're hit at. You're picturing a central dome point.
This would not be the case.
The angle comes from the crystals to the dome.

Also the dome itself will always be warped due to energy hitting the area near to it as the reflections pass over...hence why I mentioned earlier about tides. Remember a breathing dome?
DPTT said:
Quote where I was acting like a prick🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
#1651
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
No they don't. It depends on what angle they're hit at. You're picturing a central dome point.
This would not be the case.
The angle comes from the crystals to the dome.

Also the dome itself will always be warped due to energy hitting the area near to it as the reflections pass over...hence why I mentioned earlier about tides. Remember a breathing dome?
Click to expand...

I don't remember a breathing dome.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
No they don't. It depends on what angle they're hit at. You're picturing a central dome point.
This would not be the case.
The angle comes from the crystals to the dome.

Also the dome itself will always be warped due to energy hitting the area near to it as the reflections pass over...hence why I mentioned earlier about tides. Remember a breathing dome?

#1651
Click to expand...
🤷‍♂️
Hows that acting like a prick ?
Asking you to explain something
 
DPTT said:
🤷‍♂️
Hows that acting like a prick ?
Asking you to explain something
Click to expand...
Try not to put silly laughing emoji's up if you want to be serious.
By all means do it as much as you want to but don't expect me to treat you seriously and also when you call me a prick then expect to be thought of as one.

I'm not one to play teet for tat with this so I won't be arguing it any further.

If you're interested in the topic then fire away.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Try not to put silly laughing emoji's up if you want to be serious.
By all means do it as much as you want to but don't expect me to treat you seriously and also when you call me a prick then expect to be thought of as one.

I'm not one to play teet for tat with this so I won't be arguing it any further.

If you're interested in the topic then fire away.
Click to expand...

You really are arrogant, as well as stupid.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
So you think you can watch a point of light overhead and then watch it move down and that tells you you're on a tilted spinning ball? Seriously?

It tells you nothing of the sort other than to follow the diagrams set up for you to believe it marries up for you.
Click to expand...
All I asked is does the mathematical model match observations. I said ignore the tilted spinning part and for now assume it doesn't.

The maths is there right in front of your face. While a globe might not be the answer, it is undeniable that the mathematical model I provided matches observations of the height of Polaris.

Why do you deny this?
 
I've generally ignored this thread since the first 20 or so pages..... but always wondered why it was still going strong, and what could possibly be keeping it near the top for so long.... thought I'd have a glance....

My word this place is nuts :eek: :lol:
 
DaveH said:
All I asked is does the mathematical model match observations. I said ignore the tilted spinning part and for now assume it doesn't.

The maths is there right in front of your face. While a globe might not be the answer, it is undeniable that the mathematical model I provided matches observations of the height of Polaris.

Why do you deny this?
Click to expand...
You mean degrees?
The degrees of it mean absolutely nothing. It doesn't prove anything about a globe and nor does it prove anything about size nor distance.
There's nothing matching any globe you think we walk upon, spinning or not.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Try not to put silly laughing emoji's up if you want to be serious.
By all means do it as much as you want to but don't expect me to treat you seriously and also when you call me a prick then expect to be thought of as one.

I'm not one to play teet for tat with this so I won't be arguing it any further.

If you're interested in the topic then fire away.
Click to expand...
You really are the most arrogant twat on this board. Your theories are absolute garbage. Please just log off, you are an insult to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
You mean degrees?
The degrees of it mean absolutely nothing. It doesn't prove anything about a globe and nor does it prove anything about size nor distance.
There's nothing matching any globe you think we walk upon, spinning or not.
Click to expand...
And there we have it again. This is why you fail.

I said assume not spinning, I said ignore size and distance, just one step at a time. This angle to polaris is (as you mentioned yourself) the basis of navigation at sea for hundreds of years. Measure that angle, you know how far south you are. Accurate clocks were needed for east to west positioning, but that was another issue. So, how does this navigation work, how did people use this information to navigate?

I've put that answer right in front of your face, a clear interactive demonstration of how it works. The numbers are there to see and you just can not or will not admit it is there. That is on the level of, watch out for that bus, there is no bus, splat. It is just there. I left the door open to the proposition that because it works it might not be the answer or another shape might also work but no, just complete denial of something in front of you - an almost religious belief against it.

You can't provide a reasoned answer for why it doesn't work, such as the observed angles to polaris are wrong or the angle on my model is wrong in a particular scenario. Because it isn't wrong, so you just reject.

It all comes back to what I said a few weeks ago. People do not fail to explain the global model, they just fail to explain it to you. That is not a failing of the world, just what this world has produced.
 
DaveH said:
And there we have it again. This is why you fail.

I said assume not spinning, I said ignore size and distance, just one step at a time. This angle to polaris is (as you mentioned yourself) the basis of navigation at sea for hundreds of years. Measure that angle, you know how far south you are. Accurate clocks were needed for east to west positioning, but that was another issue. So, how does this navigation work, how did people use this information to navigate?

I've put that answer right in front of your face, a clear interactive demonstration of how it works. The numbers are there to see and you just can not or will not admit it is there. That is on the level of, watch out for that bus, there is no bus, splat. It is just there. I left the door open to the proposition that because it works it might not be the answer or another shape might also work but no, just complete denial of something in front of you - an almost religious belief against it.

You can't provide a reasoned answer for why it doesn't work, such as the observed angles to polaris are wrong or the angle on my model is wrong in a particular scenario. Because it isn't wrong, so you just reject.

It all comes back to what I said a few weeks ago. People do not fail to explain the global model, they just fail to explain it to you. That is not a failing of the world, just what this world has produced.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're quite getting it.
I have no issue with navigation using those points of light.
I get it but this is absolutely not my argument and you know it.

I'm well aware of what is used with a globe model but my argument is in proving it.

Point of light navigation does not tell anyone they're on a globe. Absolutely 100% not.
You know this but my question remains the same. How do you measure the distance and size of the point of light you call a star?

It's said that polaris is 323 light years away from Earth which was apparently a revised estimate from 434 light years in the 90's, as we're told.

So here's the thing.
How do you measure something that has apparently thrown light into our faces from 323 years ago. Basically light from the past, as we're told.

So what are you measuring the angle from?
How is a size calculated and why a massive revised distance just from the 90's when hundreds and even thousands of years ago people supposedly got it close, didn't they?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I don't think you're quite getting it.
I have no issue with navigation using those points of light.
I get it but this is absolutely not my argument and you know it.

I'm well aware of what is used with a globe model but my argument is in proving it.

Point of light navigation does not tell anyone they're on a globe. Absolutely 100% not.
You know this but my question remains the same. How do you measure the distance and size of the point of light you call a star?

It's said that polaris is 323 light years away from Earth which was apparently a revised estimate from 434 light years in the 90's, as we're told.

So here's the thing.
How do you measure something that has apparently thrown light into our faces from 323 years ago. Basically light from the past, as we're told.

So what are you measuring the angle from?
How is a size calculated and why a massive revised distance just from the 90's when hundreds and even thousands of years ago people supposedly got it close, didn't they?
Click to expand...

Deflection with another question about something else there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top