Put a flat earthier into space

[zwartekat]

If you want to be honest with yourself you'll know there's no proof whatsoever been put forward.
Lots of appealing to authority has been put forward and lots of backslapping has been ut forward but none of it offers proof. It offers a belief of a proof based on following a narrative set out and then going through life regurgitating it all by revision.


Water level alone is one massive proof against a globe.
You see, the simplest of things wipe the floor with the global system.


Angles are fine with known reference points.

A weather chart tells us what?
It certainly doesn't tell us about a globe.



Look, you can look at anything at all and create an angle from it from different perspectives.
You aren't doing anything to gauge star distances or size.

I seriously would not expect anything else. If you can muster up another 10,000 and have them all laugh it will change nothing.
The playground bully feels much stronger with a crowd behind and the crowd feel much stronger behind the bully.
The person on the end of it has two option.
1. Turn and run.
2. Stand their ground.

The person standing their ground becomes an issue because the only other course of action is for the bully and bullies to think up better and better put downs, hoping one will hit enough of a nerve to unnerve the person in the firing line.

Then it may only be resolved by physical attack.

In the cyber world it's only words and the old saying comes to the fore. "sticks and stones may break the bones but words should never hurt me."


Many people struggle with that and do not want to ever be seen to be at the back of the minority, so they stand behind the bully no matter what the bully says or does.

The sensible one's walk away because they see the bully for what that bully is..

Me? I see them for what they are but I will not walk away.

You've backed nothing up and put nothing forward as a proof.
I've backed up water level that anyone can do. It's not hidden from people.
It just takes people to sit back and actually try and rid their mind of the global narrative for a short while while they actually look at what's around them and how their senses do not see what they're told they see, or feel.

Why do you keep saying you've backed up water level? You haven't.

And what's all this about 'backslapping'?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The water in your bath was put to bed ages ago, you just refuse to accept it.

If it's not a flat plain then your reliance on your so called water in the bathtub argument (despite already flawed) is irrelevant

Water sits in a container. That container cannot be flat.
The Earth terrain is not flat in many instances. Mountains, hills, roughness. The seas are rarely flat and level due to waves and swell but lakes and ponds and such are flat.

Nothing to do with just a bath tub but something as simple s one can prove flat and level to anyone that uses their own logical mind against the global narrative.

Imagine thinking water can just stay on a spinning ball and stay flat and level. I used to believe it all until I started to question it and do simple little experiments that anyone can do for themselves.

Seriously dont ask, the answers will make you marginally stupider

And there is the fundamental issue you simply don't want or even try to understand, I shared a link with you about parallax and how it is used to measure the distance to stars which you totally ignored so I will try again

You must be logged on to see external links

. knowing you will utterly ignore it. And you keep banging on about 300 years (relating to the light from polaris) I have no idea of the relevance of that as it is simply one star amongst countless more in the skies - and everything you see on this planet and beyond you are actually looking into the past as the item you are seeing has aged by the time the light emitted hits your eyes, simply the distances on earth are so short the time in miniscule. We are utterly wasting time on here with you - as they say ignorance is bliss

To thin k people think we're look at light from hundreds of years in the past or even thousands or even millions. It shocks me.

As for wasting your time on me. Put me on ignore. Don't waste another second. Let's see if you can do it.

you really are dense at times - well most of the time actually.

I post saying the proof was not about spinning, not about the distance to the stars and that you keep going down that tangent, so you reply saying the same thing again.

That is why you completely fail to understand. I blatantly say ignore this that and the other, just concentrate on this one thing and you are straight off worrying about the smell of wombat piss or whatever else you can think of that avoids the point. On my mathematical model of a globe, the angles measured to the stars exactly match observations.

For reference (and you agreed earlier we could measure angles to the stars, but are backtracking a bit): Telescope, set level with the internal spirit level. Point up until it sees the stars, read the angle of the gauge or really accurate angle if it has digital control. Ancient navigators used a sextant which was small, simple and less complicated but achieved the same thing.

Any bets on what deflection and randomness he will use now to again avoid admitting the model works and he can not say why the model doesn't work, just sits saying "nah bollocks, but what about something different?....."

You miss the point. I'm asking for how you know star distances and size.
I have no issue with simple navigation of points of light once a person knows which point of light is at a particular destination which will be above it.

You see, this is what I'm saying about knowing a reference point.

So putting that aside, lets get back to yur global spinning Earth and your star distances and sizes.
If you want we can start with the sun and the moon as you believe them to be.


Soooo, we have a sun at 93 million miles and a moon at 238,000 miles, as we're told.

Both look the same size when viewed but we are told they are because of the distance and sizes.

Ok then, if they look the same size and are different, show me why they were calculated to be that with your angles.

Your stars can wait a bit.

But but but my bath water is flat

And level if you don't swish it about.

Yeah that’s a cop out answer and you know it

so I ask again, who benefits from this conspiracy? Who Benefits from 99.5% of the worlds population believing that the planet we live on is a different shape/etc

don’t answer with a question, don’t tell me to research it myself, don’t tell me I won’t comprehend the answer, just tell us all who are the major benefactors in this, the greatest of great deceptions

It's no cop out answer. You asked and I gave you an answer.
You not liking the answer is of no concern to me.

Why do you keep saying you've backed up water level? You haven't.

And what's all this about 'backslapping'?

Anyone can back up water level, it doesn't need me.
People can sort this stuff for themselves if they can allow themselves to think outside of the set narratives they were schooled into.

 

[fyl2u]

Water sits in a container. That container cannot be flat.
The Earth terrain is not flat in many instances. Mountains, hills, roughness. The seas are rarely flat and level due to waves and swell but lakes and ponds and such are flat.

Nothing to do with just a bath tub but something as simple s one can prove flat and level to anyone that uses their own logical mind against the global narrative.

Imagine thinking water can just stay on a spinning ball and stay flat and level. I used to believe it all until I started to question it and do simple little experiments that anyone can do for themselves.

To thin k people think we're look at light from hundreds of years in the past or even thousands or even millions. It shocks me.

As for wasting your time on me. Put me on ignore. Don't waste another second. Let's see if you can do it.

You miss the point. I'm asking for how you know star distances and size.
I have no issue with simple navigation of points of light once a person knows which point of light is at a particular destination which will be above it.

You see, this is what I'm saying about knowing a reference point.

So putting that aside, lets get back to yur global spinning Earth and your star distances and sizes.
If you want we can start with the sun and the moon as you believe them to be.


Soooo, we have a sun at 93 million miles and a moon at 238,000 miles, as we're told.

Both look the same size when viewed but we are told they are because of the distance and sizes.

Ok then, if they look the same size and are different, show me why they were calculated to be that with your angles.

Your stars can wait a bit.

And level if you don't swish it about.

It's no cop out answer. You asked and I gave you an answer.
You not liking the answer is of no concern to me.

Anyone can back up water level, it doesn't need me.
People can sort this stuff for themselves if they can allow themselves to think outside of the set narratives they were schooled into.

Your water level argument is false, because you're not using equipment accurate enough to measure whether it is completely flat as you would expect on your flat/cell earth model, or whether it is curved at the amount one would expect if we lived on an oblate spheroid.

 

[taipeisafc]

Your water level argument is false, because you're not using equipment accurate enough to measure whether it is completely flat as you would expect on your flat/cell earth model, or whether it is curved at the amount one would expect if we lived on an oblate spheroid.

I've already tried that one - he ignored it. Same as he keeps ignoring the parallax information I post. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

 

[ned_werby]

Water. Flat. okay.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Big Jeff]

The earth is not flat. We did go to the moon. Princess Diana died in a car accident.

Terrorists flew planes into the world trade centre.

I hope that helps.

 

[DaveH]

Water sits in a container. That container cannot be flat.
The Earth terrain is not flat in many instances. Mountains, hills, roughness. The seas are rarely flat and level due to waves and swell but lakes and ponds and such are flat.

Nothing to do with just a bath tub but something as simple s one can prove flat and level to anyone that uses their own logical mind against the global narrative.

Imagine thinking water can just stay on a spinning ball and stay flat and level. I used to believe it all until I started to question it and do simple little experiments that anyone can do for themselves.

To thin k people think we're look at light from hundreds of years in the past or even thousands or even millions. It shocks me.

As for wasting your time on me. Put me on ignore. Don't waste another second. Let's see if you can do it.

You miss the point. I'm asking for how you know star distances and size.
I have no issue with simple navigation of points of light once a person knows which point of light is at a particular destination which will be above it.

You see, this is what I'm saying about knowing a reference point.

So putting that aside, lets get back to yur global spinning Earth and your star distances and sizes.
If you want we can start with the sun and the moon as you believe them to be.


Soooo, we have a sun at 93 million miles and a moon at 238,000 miles, as we're told.

Both look the same size when viewed but we are told they are because of the distance and sizes.

Ok then, if they look the same size and are different, show me why they were calculated to be that with your angles.

Your stars can wait a bit.

And level if you don't swish it about.

It's no cop out answer. You asked and I gave you an answer.
You not liking the answer is of no concern to me.

Anyone can back up water level, it doesn't need me.
People can sort this stuff for themselves if they can allow themselves to think outside of the set narratives they were schooled into.

You miss the point, deliberately I suspect. I’ve shown that the stars we use for navigation that can only work for a globe. I’ve said don’t worry about spinning or anything else. In fact the model I put forward allows you to pull the star closer just to see what happens. All the other bits come later, the first step is to look at the shape.

The model I put forward matches 100% observations, meaning the globe model works. It is there in front of your face and you just deflect around it because you know it is true. Admit that and then we will worry about spinning.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Water. Flat. okay.

Logon or register to see this image

Is that unhindered in a container? Thought not. Try again.

You miss the point, deliberately I suspect. I’ve shown that the stars we use for navigation that can only work for a globe.

No you haven't.

I’ve said don’t worry about spinning or anything else.

I'm not but I'm also not worrying about your attempts to swerve.

In fact the model I put forward allows you to pull the star closer just to see what happens. All the other bits come later, the first step is to look at the shape.

Pull the star closer?

The model I put forward matches 100% observations, meaning the globe model works.

No, it doesn't. Not at all and you know it.

It is there in front of your face and you just deflect around it because you know it is true. Admit that and then we will worry about spinning.

There's nothing in front of my face that tells me anything about a spinning globe or light year stars, except to observe a narrative being played out by people who follow it.

 

[ned_werby]

Is that unhindered in a container? Thought not. Try again.


No you haven't.

I'm not but I'm also not worrying about your attempts to swerve.

Pull the star closer?



No, it doesn't. Not at all and you know it.

There's nothing in front of my face that tells me anything about a spinning globe or light year stars, except to observe a narrative being played out by people who follow it.

Flat . Not happening.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Flat . Not happening.

A droplet of water. Yep a droplet of water is not flat.
Maybe you didn't read the container bit.

 

[taipeisafc]

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[DaveH]

Is that unhindered in a container? Thought not. Try again.


No you haven't.

I'm not but I'm also not worrying about your attempts to swerve.

Pull the star closer?



No, it doesn't. Not at all and you know it.

There's nothing in front of my face that tells me anything about a spinning globe or light year stars, except to observe a narrative being played out by people who follow it.

Ok, go back to the model I produced, the interactive one (I'll put a link below to help) and tell me which angles of the observers do not match reality.

Lets get some real figures on it and see where you say it doesn't match. Clearly an observer at the pole has polaris overhead, and observer at the equator has polaris on the horizon, so it must be somewhere in between. Can you give me a position of an observer or a distance between them were the angles are way off?

Once you get over this hurdle, then we can look at other evidence to see if it spins or not, if it orbits a sun, if there is a axial tilt and if the other stars are really close or very far away.

Though you did make me smile with that. I love the way you turn around what people have said to you and throw it back. 3-4 weeks now I've been repeating "just concentrate on this one thing, don't deflect onto other things", so now you say I'm swerving the question. This is step 1.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ok, go back to the model I produced, the interactive one (I'll put a link below to help) and tell me which angles of the observers do not match reality.

Lets get some real figures on it and see where you say it doesn't match. Clearly an observer at the pole has polaris overhead, and observer at the equator has polaris on the horizon, so it must be somewhere in between. Can you give me a position of an observer or a distance between them were the angles are way off?

Once you get over this hurdle, then we can look at other evidence to see if it spins or not, if it orbits a sun, if there is a axial tilt and if the other stars are really close or very far away.

Though you did make me smile with that. I love the way you turn around what people have said to you and throw it back. 3-4 weeks now I've been repeating "just concentrate on this one thing, don't deflect onto other things", so now you say I'm swerving the question. This is step 1.

You must be logged on to see external links

I've tried to tell you it would be impossible on your globe.

To get your angle from your polaris star your Earth must rotate away from it from you seeing it high to seeing it on what you claim would be your horizon and you think you can gain an angle from that.

This cannot happen on a globe because your view of your star means you have to look up and create your start point (line) from that.

Now you have to have your star move down as your Earth rotates away, meaning you rotate away at an angle. Your vision would be off.
The angle does not work on your globe.
It would work fine on a circle as you would perceive the point of light at whatever position it's at and then a position it moves towards.

 

[Big Jeff]

Is this the place where we have the pointless arguments?

 

[DaveH]

I've tried to tell you it would be impossible on your globe.

To get your angle from your polaris star your Earth must rotate away from it from you seeing it high to seeing it on what you claim would be your horizon and you think you can gain an angle from that.

This cannot happen on a globe because your view of your star means you have to look up and create your start point (line) from that.

Now you have to have your star move down as your Earth rotates away, meaning you rotate away at an angle. Your vision would be off.
The angle does not work on your globe.
It would work fine on a circle as you would perceive the point of light at whatever position it's at and then a position it moves towards.

So don't rotate the earth, or picture it as a snapshot.

Perhaps this means the earth doesn't rotate. If the earth was static, which angle doesn't work?

If they don't work, why does the model match exactly observations?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So don't rotate the earth, or picture it as a snapshot.

Perhaps this means the earth doesn't rotate. If the earth was static, which angle doesn't work?

If they don't work, why does the model match exactly observations?

Yeah let's not rotate the Earth and lets have the Earth not be a globe we supposedly walk upon, like you mention.
Now we have to have the points of light to move over and away from our view to give us a perceived angle.
Fine on a circle.

 

[ned_werby]

A droplet of water. Yep a droplet of water is not flat.
Maybe you didn't read the container bit.

So where we live is a container? Not a relatively flat vista - with hot and cold running atmospheres?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So where we live is a container? Not a relatively flat vista - with hot and cold running atmospheres?

A cell is a container.
The sea and waters are all in their own containers. They sit inside concave indentations around Earth and unhindered they conform to them and sit flat and level.

 

[DaveH]

Yeah let's not rotate the Earth and lets have the Earth not be a globe we supposedly walk upon, like you mention.
Now we have to have the points of light to move over and away from our view to give us a perceived angle.
Fine on a circle.

So you are happy that if the model of earth I have is on a circle representing a cross section of the earth then the model works?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So you are happy that if the model of earth I have is on a circle representing a cross section of the earth then the model works?

The model works for what?
For height and distance?
If so....no.