Ok, let's keep this simple. What does @Nukehasslefan think would happen if he left his house and walked in a perfectly straight line for about 25,000 miles?
-
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
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
Nukehasslefan
Winger
You got your answer but carry on by all means if you feel you must.
Likely drown in short order.
Don't be silly, answer the question. 'Travelled' if you'd prefer.
GK
Striker
But if you went in a boat an sailed in a straight line what would happen? Is there an edge? Why can't flat earthers in countries close to the edge see it? Using a telescope even?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Let's say flown.
I'd say whichever line you start from death would come as you start to hit the uninhabitable frozen zones, which would not be happening on a globe.
No edge. It's a cell, imo.
Where we survive will be way way distant from the major hazards and we would never have a chance of getting near the centre nor the outer gradient of the cell due to lack of heat transfer from the centralised sun.
The same goes for the move towards the centre.
The gradient towards that would be inhospitable farther out and basically render anything a dead stick, even machinery.
Last edited:
taipeisafc
Striker
No i didnt i got the usual bullshit deflection when you forget what you made up last time.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Last time I'm going to go over this.
Feel free to think what you wish on this and by all means quote me as many times as you feel the need to. But remember, I will simply bypass it as I've already answered it.
taipeisafc
Striker
No you havent was the earth diameter revised in the 90's
GK
Striker
What shape is the cell?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
GK
Striker
So we're living on a round surface?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
nahwee
Winger
The image that‘s presented when you put into Google Earth a place you want to see.
For example - I put in my home address, the globe moves to my location and I can zoom in to my back garden.
What I see when I zoom in is a very accurate arial view of my back garden – lawns, paths, trees, garden furniture etc..
And it’s not just my back garden I can look at, it’s everybodies!
As I said, and although I can’t prove it, I believe these images, or photos if you like, are made by using a satelite orbiting the earth.
As you’re not convinced of satelites, how do you think Google gets these?
"uninhabitable frozen zones". where are these please? and where is the "centralized sun"?
payne
Striker
You can't reach these areas as the temperature reaches absolute zero and atoms stop moving. One can't even approach these areas or measure the effects in any way conveniently.
DaveH
Striker
Thanks, but I've reached the limit of what I can do. I've got a block of parmesan cheese in the fridge. I'll try that and come back if I have more success.
He can scream fictional calculations all he wants, but everyone can see a working mathematical model right in front of his face. It is the same as me screaming Australia is fictional. Doesn't matter how many times I say it, it doesn't make it fictional.
The Krankie Returns
Central Defender
I’ll be disappearing in a puff of logic once a certain poster shows that my adopted country doesn’t exist.
DaveH
Striker
.
Anyway, one for normal folk that might be interested.....
Yesterday there was some discussion about if you angled a central light and heat source and changed that angle through the year, what effect would it have on seasons. A dome can be represented by an inverted parabolic curve, and the physics of reflections from a such a curve is well known too people who are not education deniers. Such knowledge is applied in all sorts from telescope mirrors, all sorts of light focussing equipment and satellite dishes.
In this:
If you pick a range of source angles and say you change that gradually over 6 months then move it back, that would give the effect we see of the sun moving between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. If these are the hottest places getting cooler going out from there, then that works to describe seasons, so this model looks feasible so far.
However one of the properties of the two tropics is that the sun is directly overhead of one of these during the winter or summer solstice. It is clear the sun reflection can not appear overhead anywhere but above the north pole. In this dome model a shadow would always be cast. This does not match basic observational evidence. You also have the sun during the winter solstice at a 30 degree angle at the north pole and for our latitude you are looking at 50-60 degrees. In the UK you are looking at a maximum height of about 15 degrees during the winter solstice. The model doesn't work.
From the other side of the world, which should be in darkness, the sun is at about 20 degrees. These are pretty vague angles and looking to say the UK is proportionally this far from the north pole. The angles change if you change the size and shape of the dome.
Thinking it through, if you fire a light up to a mirror, the only angle you shine that light at so that it bounces back down and does not create a shadow, is to a flat mirror and fire straight up. Using the basics of light travelling in a straight line and the angle of incidence=angle of reflection, then it is impossible to have a ground level source reflect without shadows. You could put the source up a really big tower, fire it at right angles and have a 45 degree mirror, that would work.
So yes, works on the basic level of a single observation and single idea but breaks down completely once you consider other observations.
What you can do however is start to angle the ground so at the tropic of capricorn, the earth starts to arc up at about 20 degrees. That gives you a dome with the earth in a mound underneath, one that perhaps mirrors the shape of the dome. I've not explored that further. It gets it to a closer match but still has a few problems.
I tried, but I'm open to suggestions for modifications for how the shape might work. A parabola is defined by ax^2+bx+c, it does work a bit better if you change the equation to x^2+y^2.
Anyway, one for normal folk that might be interested.....
Yesterday there was some discussion about if you angled a central light and heat source and changed that angle through the year, what effect would it have on seasons. A dome can be represented by an inverted parabolic curve, and the physics of reflections from a such a curve is well known too people who are not education deniers. Such knowledge is applied in all sorts from telescope mirrors, all sorts of light focussing equipment and satellite dishes.
In this:
You must be logged on to see external links
you can use the two sliders to change the height and width of a dome to a range of shapes. You can drag the point A to change the angle from the source S and see where it's reflection S' goes. From this you can see that with a lot of dome shapes, an angle of about 30 degrees would direct the sun down to about 2/3 of the distance from the middle to the edge. Firing the source to a higher angle on the dome brings the reflected light closer to the pole.If you pick a range of source angles and say you change that gradually over 6 months then move it back, that would give the effect we see of the sun moving between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. If these are the hottest places getting cooler going out from there, then that works to describe seasons, so this model looks feasible so far.
However one of the properties of the two tropics is that the sun is directly overhead of one of these during the winter or summer solstice. It is clear the sun reflection can not appear overhead anywhere but above the north pole. In this dome model a shadow would always be cast. This does not match basic observational evidence. You also have the sun during the winter solstice at a 30 degree angle at the north pole and for our latitude you are looking at 50-60 degrees. In the UK you are looking at a maximum height of about 15 degrees during the winter solstice. The model doesn't work.
From the other side of the world, which should be in darkness, the sun is at about 20 degrees. These are pretty vague angles and looking to say the UK is proportionally this far from the north pole. The angles change if you change the size and shape of the dome.
Thinking it through, if you fire a light up to a mirror, the only angle you shine that light at so that it bounces back down and does not create a shadow, is to a flat mirror and fire straight up. Using the basics of light travelling in a straight line and the angle of incidence=angle of reflection, then it is impossible to have a ground level source reflect without shadows. You could put the source up a really big tower, fire it at right angles and have a 45 degree mirror, that would work.
So yes, works on the basic level of a single observation and single idea but breaks down completely once you consider other observations.
What you can do however is start to angle the ground so at the tropic of capricorn, the earth starts to arc up at about 20 degrees. That gives you a dome with the earth in a mound underneath, one that perhaps mirrors the shape of the dome. I've not explored that further. It gets it to a closer match but still has a few problems.
I tried, but I'm open to suggestions for modifications for how the shape might work. A parabola is defined by ax^2+bx+c, it does work a bit better if you change the equation to x^2+y^2.
Last edited:
taipeisafc
Striker
Merely your musings, don't need to prove anything as obviously Australia doesn't exist just a big scam and not well done I mean vegemite ffs
