Put a flat earthier into space

[DaveH]

I agree with your whole post entirely. As for your last paragraph that is the exact same thing religion does. Pits all other religions against each other (or at least it did before more had to accept we're in the 21st century) so they have their enemy and can be confident their version of events is the right one.

I'd add the lack of control goes hand in had with the fear of the unknown or simply not knowing. This is scary for all of us but it seems some can't handle it and have to invent a world they can fit in.

As I'd guess you'd go along with not knowing can also be one of the most exciting places to be as it gives us (humans) something to strive for. This is probably why the species are explorers (who may or may not have been to the north pole).

True, I never thought of that, but you are right the last bit is pretty much a description of religion.

 

[fyl2u]

I don't dismiss proof.
Show me proof that I can't dismiss.
Do you have any proof?
Water level is one proof that is there for all to observe, test and repeat.

Why do you think billions of people are right on this?

You're right about water level. It is one proof for all to observe, test and repeat.

Unfortunately your eyes alone aren't accurate enough to prove or disprove the globe earth theory with it. After all, if the globe earth theory worked in the way everyone says it does, then the difference in water level that someone would expect to see would be mere fractions of a micrometre across the length of a bathtub.

So, if you want to to use a bathtub of water to disprove a globe earth, you should get yourself a measuring device that can actually accurately measure it and put us all in our place by showing us that our predicted fractions-of-a-micrometre difference in water level isn't there.

 

[nahwee]

Right, back to Google Earth...

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 satellites, how do you think Google gets these?

Yep and I have no issues with what you see.
What you don't see, are up to date images. Nothing like up to date. In fact some are many months previous. I'm sure that's not lost on you....right?

I don’t see the relevance.

If you look at the pictures, they become realistic at plane height. Try it and see where the CGI starts and where it ends to become terrain reality.

I have looked, and when zooming in from globe to my back garden, I don’t see anything that suggests where CGI would start or end.

‚at plane height‘ Do you mean the altitude at which aeroplanes fly?

Have I understood correctly? Is it your opinion planes are used to take arial photographs of the earth then patched together with CGI images of a globe?

 

[legend7]

Water.

So what's at the edge as the original person said

 

[tunstall birdman]

I disagree.

I've learnt a lot from this thread, thanks to @DaveH and co, and I hope others have too.

I've enjoyed reading this thread, interesting and entertaining. I could have got involved as I love owt like this, but have decided to sit with my inquisitive mind and bags of popcorn on the ready.

 

[fyl2u]

So what's at the edge as the original person said

He's covered this already. There's no "edge" because it's a "cell". When you get far enough out it gets too cold to survive and then there's a "superfluid hydrogen and helium wall" ( ) that goes up from there and makes up the dome shape of the cell.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

To be fair, I have only recently started reading up on stuff I took for granted and I doubt many people could give the scientific basis for a lot of stuff that they believe.

However, this Nukehassle bloke has some weird condition. He obviously cannot comprehend simple science.

That depends on what is deemed as simple science.
Any idea?

Just listen out for the sound of strong light and the smell of Tuesday, and you will be fine.

Nail on head with the second part.

I do think these threads are interesting in a way, apart from the laugh at the freak show and the trying to understand conspiracy theorists in general. They do make you think and I agree with one of the sentiments they preach "don't just accept, think and work it out for yourself". Obviously only if you are interested enough, but how many things do we just take for granted? One example is while walking the dog one day I looked at a rainbow and thought "does that demonstrate the curve of the earth?". From the scale of it, it seemed unlikely (too small relative to the huge land mass) but worth thinking about. Read up more and it turns out no. You can experiment further with a mist spray and your own light source.

But in general looking into this stuff is really interesting. There are ways you can do many of these things yourself, such as calculate the radius of the earth. Or the example that I put forward was we know the ancient navigators used the stars, but how did they use them. How can you use a sexton to work out how many miles south you have gone? It feels like something you shouldn't be able to do and just get from a book/internet, but actually you can and there is the "oh that is cool" feeling of just haven proven something without a rocket or expensive lab.

Though what the CTs do is deny everything, assume everyone is out to trick them, everything is a lie and never climb down from that stand point. Reject things on the basis they don't measure up to their personal expectation, don't actually investigate, get so invested in the conspiracy they just point blank deny anything, and then replace it with a complete fantasy that doesn't stand up to the same scrutiny as they applied to the model they rejected, and spend a lot of time telling everyone else they are the stupid ones.

Actually nobody's denying point of light navigation, it's the questioning of what that navigation is achieved on, which I 100% believe is not on a spinning globe we supposedly live upon.

And I'll say it again. It's also not about denying everything. Many things are accepted and you've been told this so many times yet seem to overlook it in favour of using it as some kind of battering ram to lump people who question stuff into people who will not accept anything at all in life.


By all means carry on but I'm just letting you know, once again...and will again most likely.

Things you have proved....
That you cant understand a simple diagram.
That you have little or no concept of scale.

Things you have not proved....
That Earth is anything other than a globe.

You must be logged on to see media items

You must be logged on to see media items

‚at plane height‘ Do you mean the altitude at which aeroplanes fly?

I'm not talking about jets. I'm talking about aerial smaller planes mapping the terrain and taking pictures/video.
If you've ever observed them you will see the pattern they take when doing it.
Anyone ever seen them going backwards and forwards as they map the terrain?

Have I understood correctly? Is it your opinion planes are used to take arial photographs of the earth then patched together with CGI images of a globe?

They show you a globe and then you put in your address or co-ordinates. The globe will turn to the place, in CGI until you get to a plane height. Only then does it change from CGI to real.
I'm pretty sure you can see what I'm saying.
I'm sure most will know what I'm taking about.

So what's at the edge as the original person said

There is no edge as I've said so many times.
@The Snockerty Friddle
Here's a few other things to look at.

You must be logged on to see media items

You see, offering videos of supposed space and people on a so called space station, is not proof of anything to do with the space you believe in.

I mean we get mocked time and time and time again with these people but many think it's all fine and dandy.
Mark Kelly smuggling a gorilla suit onto the space station, as we're told and him and Tim Peake having a splendid time playing games.

You must be logged on to see external links

And then we can see the full on mock up, supposedly. Hmmmm.


I mean, make of it what you will. I know what I make of it all and it won't be lost on you....but, each to their own.

 

[DaveH]

That depends on what is deemed as simple science.
Any idea?

Actually nobody's denying point of light navigation, it's the questioning of what that navigation is achieved on, which I 100% believe is not on a spinning globe we supposedly live upon.

And I'll say it again. It's also not about denying everything. Many things are accepted and you've been told this so many times yet seem to overlook it in favour of using it as some kind of battering ram to lump people who question stuff into people who will not accept anything at all in life.


By all means carry on but I'm just letting you know, once again...and will again most likely.

You must be logged on to see media items

I'm not talking about jets. I'm talking about aerial smaller planes mapping the terrain and taking pictures/video.
If you've ever observed them you will see the pattern they take when doing it.
Anyone ever seen them going backwards and forwards as they map the terrain?

They show you a globe and then you put in your address or co-ordinates. The globe will turn to the place, in CGI until you get to a plane height. Only then does it change from CGI to real.
I'm pretty sure you can see what I'm saying.
I'm sure most will know what I'm taking about.

There is no edge as I've said so many times.
@The Snockerty Friddle
Here's a few other things to look at.

You must be logged on to see media items

You must be logged on to see media items

You see, offering videos of supposed space and people on a so called space station, is not proof of anything to do with the space you believe in.

I mean we get mocked time and time and time again with these people but many think it's all fine and dandy.
Mark Kelly smuggling a gorilla suit onto the space station, as we're told and him and Tim Peake having a splendid time playing games.

You must be logged on to see external links

And then we can see the full on mock up, supposedly. Hmmmm.


I mean, make of it what you will. I know what I make of it all and it won't be lost on you....but, each to their own.

So how do navigators know how far south they are using the stars? How/why does that work?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

So you've been shown how to calculate the Earths curvature by looking at Polaris, how to see Earths movement by learning your way around the sky, how to see the curvature on water with lasers, how water behaves in space and your reply is the Big Bang clips and a Flatearth man video. "Get your flat earth merch here."
If I run backwards at the speed of light will I get back the time I spent watching that shite?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So how do navigators know how far south they are using the stars? How/why does that work?

How bout telling me the stars they're using to go south.
As I say that Understand my dome model and understand the points of light moving over and around it.

So my centre is the place where all light comes from. You know it as your north pole on your globe.
So, starting from your north poleich you believe is under the north pole at the bottom of your ball Earth, which stars are you using to follow that path?

In terms of what I go with, there is no south pole but there is an opposite to the north on the compass which is claimed as south on your global Earth.

Now here's the key. If I was to aim for a certain part of Earth from the compass north to south in one direction I would need to follow a south point to the accuracy of that point without deviation. Could I do that without hitting land and where do I end up?

Soooo, if I follow the points of light like you believe is being followed for a globe, I'll get the same places you get to by following your points of light towards the south you believe, yet, instead of you going over a curve you're going around a circle by following a star that you think goes over a globe.

The thing is, the going round the circle is not in your face. It's point to point if you follow your points of light, until those points of light disappear from view as they move over and around the circle.

So you've been shown how to calculate the Earths curvature by looking at Polaris

Nope.

, how to see Earths movement by learning your way around the sky,

Absolutely not.

how to see the curvature on water with lasers

Absolutely not.

, how water behaves in space

Absolutely not at all.

and your reply is the Big Bang clips and a Flatearth man video. "Get your flat earth merch here."

No. My answer is, if you can offer videos of what you say is a space station and space then I've offered you alternates. Like I said, make of it what you will.

If I run backwards at the speed of light will I get back the time I spent watching that shite?

There's no speed of light in my opinion.

As for getting back the time you spent watching the videos. Did you have anything better to do? If you did then you wasted that time. If you didn't, then that time was spent regardless.

 

[What A Waster]

Hey @Nukehasslefan

What are your thoughts on long range artillery?
How the angle they fire at is different to the line of sight over long distances?

I mean a high velocity round may only take 2 or 3 seconds to hit the target but they still alter the angle despite being having a horizontal line of sight.

Why do you think this is?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Hey @Nukehasslefan

What are your thoughts on long range artillery?
How the angle they fire at is different to the line of sight over long distances?

I mean a high velocity round may only take 2 or 3 seconds to hit the target but they still alter the angle despite being having a horizontal line of sight.

Why do you think this is?

You mean the coriolis effect?

If this is the case and they alter the sight to take it into account then you have to accept that it has to apply to planes and helicopters and high altitude balloons, because this tells us that ....if the Earth is a spinning globe as this supposed coriolis effect is in place, then merely jumping up for just one second would alter the landing of a person, never mind a jet or a hovering helicopter....etc.

You see, this is where we get toyed with. Thrown misinfo.

Let me explain why angle is altered, from my side.


If you've been reading my stuff you'll understand that I mentioned a vortex from the centre outwards on the Earth I go with.
Think of it like a big round sink with a plug hole that's open. In my case it's a Earth full of air covered by a dome skin of ice, as you know, I think.
Anyway using a sink analogy you can understand how the water in that sink starts to create a vortex down that plug hole and anything at the centre is pushed into it at speed a bit farther out everything moves slower and slower.


Imagine pushing something towards the plug hold or towards the rim. You'd see a slight alteration in angle as the water catches it as it slowly goes around.

Now think of that but using atmosphere and you would get a minor alteration in angle over distance.

It's also why planes use the jet stream, only they follow the path of circulation and try to avoid the path against it.

I know I know. What?....right?


I can only explain from my side and leave it to people to sit back and think on it.

 

[taipeisafc]

You mean the coriolis effect?

If this is the case and they alter the sight to take it into account then you have to accept that it has to apply to planes and helicopters and high altitude balloons, because this tells us that ....if the Earth is a spinning globe as this supposed coriolis effect is in place, then merely jumping up for just one second would alter the landing of a person, never mind a jet or a hovering helicopter....etc.

You see, this is where we get toyed with. Thrown misinfo.

Let me explain why angle is altered, from my side.


If you've been reading my stuff you'll understand that I mentioned a vortex from the centre outwards on the Earth I go with.
Think of it like a big round sink with a plug hole that's open. In my case it's a Earth full of air covered by a dome skin of ice, as you know, I think.
Anyway using a sink analogy you can understand how the water in that sink starts to create a vortex down that plug hole and anything at the centre is pushed into it at speed a bit farther out everything moves slower and slower.


Imagine pushing something towards the plug hold or towards the rim. You'd see a slight alteration in angle as the water catches it as it slowly goes around.

Now think of that but using atmosphere and you would get a minor alteration in angle over distance.

It's also why planes use the jet stream, only they follow the path of circulation and try to avoid the path against it.

I know I know. What?....right?


I can only explain from my side and leave it to people to sit back and think on it.

You have no idea what the coriolis effect is do you? None whatsoever - you do realise it relies on angular velocity and rotation hence it requires something turning around. The vortex formed in a plug hole needs either gravity or rotational velocity for it to happen - explain that clown shoe.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Nope.

Absolutely not.

Absolutely not.

Absolutely not at all.

No.

As for getting back the time you spent watching the videos. Did you have anything better to do? If you did then you wasted that time. If you didn't, then that time was spent regardless.

Well I suppose I could have spent the time looking back at this thread and finding the times when you absolutely were shown all of those things but refused to see them. Equally pointless but more entertaining than FlatEarthMan.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You have no idea what the coriolis effect is do you? None whatsoever - you do realise it relies on angular velocity and rotation hence it requires something turning around. The vortex formed in a plug hole needs either gravity or rotational velocity for it to happen - explain that clown shoe.

Maybe paying attention to what I said would help you greatly.

Well I suppose I could have spent the time looking back at this thread and finding the times when you absolutely were shown all of those things but refused to see them. Equally pointless but more entertaining than FlatEarthMan.

You can spend your time how you wish. I'm sure you've spent it doing worse things and spent it doing much better things. It's swings and roundabouts.

 

[Nobby]

You mean the coriolis effect?

If this is the case and they alter the sight to take it into account then you have to accept that it has to apply to planes and helicopters and high altitude balloons, because this tells us that ....if the Earth is a spinning globe as this supposed coriolis effect is in place, then merely jumping up for just one second would alter the landing of a person, never mind a jet or a hovering helicopter....etc.

You see, this is where we get toyed with. Thrown misinfo.

Let me explain why angle is altered, from my side.


If you've been reading my stuff you'll understand that I mentioned a vortex from the centre outwards on the Earth I go with.
Think of it like a big round sink with a plug hole that's open. In my case it's a Earth full of air covered by a dome skin of ice, as you know, I think.
Anyway using a sink analogy you can understand how the water in that sink starts to create a vortex down that plug hole and anything at the centre is pushed into it at speed a bit farther out everything moves slower and slower.


Imagine pushing something towards the plug hold or towards the rim. You'd see a slight alteration in angle as the water catches it as it slowly goes around.

Now think of that but using atmosphere and you would get a minor alteration in angle over distance.

It's also why planes use the jet stream, only they follow the path of circulation and try to avoid the path against it.

I know I know. What?....right?


I can only explain from my side and leave it to people to sit back and think on it.

But your pressure waves that cause tides, go out from your center not in towards it or are there 2 different types of pressure waves that impact things depending on what the object is? How does the pressure wave know to leave some things alone?

 

[Harry Angstrom]

That depends on what is deemed as simple science.
Any idea?

A stick in the ground and the shadow it makes. How is this done?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But your pressure waves that cause tides go out from your center not in towards it or are there 2 different types of pressure waves that impact things depending on what the object is? How does the pressure wave know to leave some things alone?

Can you elaborate on what you're getting at?

 

[Nobby]

Can you elaborate on what you're getting at?

No, do your research

 

[Nukehasslefan]

A stick in the ground and the shadow it makes. How is this done?

Sun reflection angle off the dome.
If the angle of reflection hits the stick it creates a shadow. The closer the angle to the stick the less of the stick creates the shadow.
So as the sun reflection off the dome moves over and around it you will see the effect of it on the stick with shadow and movement.