• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


Nukehasslefan said:
Maybe you didn't grasp the indentations around Earth.
You think water would be on a gradient and are looking at the gradient from the picture point of view as if water just stays on an incline or decline.
Try and understand the word "container."

Lands are raised away from water, hence why you can walk into the sea and slowly but surely walk down a gradient. A concavity.
The sea goes from shallow to deeper.
Is the UK submerged?
I mean how we look at it as an island?
No. Well everything you see above water is because the land is raised, obviously.

I agree with this. If the one's that are whining about me, b;lock me then they don't have to worry about me. I'm hoping this includes you.

And you people aren't....right?
Click to expand...
You people? Who are you people then?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Yep, I have no issue with that. You just aren't doing it on a spinning globe.

You may do so but it's all about where you or machine break down due to inhospitable terrain.


In the pretence of your north pole, yes....on paper.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
You do know people have got there without "machinery"
And someone crossed Antarctica which isn't possible on your "map"
So you agree looking at your picture continuing on from Russia or Canada or Greenland would take you to where the crystals are, glad we cleared that up 👍👍
 
Nukehasslefan said:
But you accept it all as fact and this is where the debate lies. This is why it is not pointless.



We're all gullible and naive. It's just a case of to what degree and for what offerings of storylines we choose to go with...etc.

I certainly am gullible in many instances.
Remember I also believed a global Earth at one stage and many many other things I now question or disbelieve.
I can still be conned to this very day, as we all can.
If you don't think you can be gullible then you can carry on in that vein. But remember one thing. If you've been conned in any way shape or form in life, no matter how silly it is/was, you're gullible.


Absolutely not.
I massively question and reason it out. Whether you accept that or not is of no issue to me. It's my own thoughts and process that counts.

The only way to argue something is to use the something that is a basis for the argument.
I accept and follow a lot of stuff without question. It doesn't mean I believe it all to be factual, it just means I find no reason to bother to question.

Then there's stuff like this which begs questions.

No they haven't.

With no reference point you don't have accurate geometry.


Yep, I have no issue with that. You just aren't doing it on a spinning globe.

You may do so but it's all about where you or machine break down due to inhospitable terrain.



In the pretence of your north pole, yes....on paper.

Not quite but it's a decent take on it.

Add that into this shape and it gets better.
You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
@Nukehasslefan
After 110 pages you come up with that 🤷‍♂️😂
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I can prove water is level but anyone who decides it's not will never be looking for proof of anything that goes against the grain.

As for me proving my own Earth theory. I don't pass it out as factual. I pass it out as a potential from my point of view.
The difference is, I don't try to tell people it's a definite reality. The global nonsense is passed off as factual.


There is zero proof.
Click to expand...
Go on then, prove it! Prove water is level. You cant. You'll show it's level-ish within tiny tolerances, but if you think just looking at the water in your bath tub constitutes proof then you're not even trying.

You may not have the conviction to claim your theory as factual, but you are more than willing to insist that the accepted science and knowledge of several thousand years is most definately nonsense. That's the 'fact' you're claiming and what people will argue against. No-one can say you're wrong because you're just 'musing' but you're ok with telling us we're all wrong and blindly accepting what we're told when some at least might actually be just a bit more educated than you assume.

No-one is whining about you. Some are laughing, some maybe a bit dismayed that beliefs such as yours exist, some think you're making the whole thing up for entertainment, but not one agrees with you.

As for "There is zero proof." That's like saying your arse doesn't exist so long as you refuse to look at it. You ask people to show proof but it has to be according to your definition of proof, which appears to include a clause that excuses you from ever having to go and test it out or do anything that might prove the globe. Ther IS proof, but you cant put hours of sky watching and observation in a message board post, you're going to have to do that yourself.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Maybe you didn't grasp the indentations around Earth.
You think water would be on a gradient and are looking at the gradient from the picture point of view as if water just stays on an incline or decline.
Try and understand the word "container."

Lands are raised away from water, hence why you can walk into the sea and slowly but surely walk down a gradient. A concavity.
The sea goes from shallow to deeper.
Is the UK submerged?
I mean how we look at it as an island?
No. Well everything you see above water is because the land is raised, obviously.

I agree with this. If the one's that are whining about me, b;lock me then they don't have to worry about me. I'm hoping this includes you.

And you people aren't....right?
Click to expand...
Ha’way man, this is getting really silly. I could make that shape right now out of a bit of kids plasticine, and pour water in it. The trough would fill up, the sides would be void of water. Look where the UK is, what would keep the water there? Put water on a gradient and it flows down.

If the atmosphere is stacked as you state then there would be a considerable difference between countries in the trough as to those in the north. This doesn’t happen.

To hold water where they say the seas are (assuming when I walk down to the coast I’m really seeing the sea and not looking at a dessert seeing see because I’ve been schooled to think it is there), you would need some other force to stop it flowing into the trough. Some attractive force sticking the water to the sloping sides of the squeezer. A bit like a magnet but that worked on water rather than just on some types of metal.
 
Nobby said:
On this model the UK is on a curved bit, how come his bath water remains flat?
Click to expand...
Mental isn't it. 110 pages and it comes to this:
Logon or register to see this image


On the left we have a slightly squashed hemisphere describing the apparent shape of the earth, with land south of the equator removed. This is apparently what the world could look like and he believes works. On the right we have the standard accepted globe model, which absolutely could not work in a million years for which there is ZERO PROOF. Not the best picture match, but spot anything a bit similar?

Literally every argument in 111 pages (and that is only this thread) he has had against the globe applies to the northern hemisphere on that one. The thing I've been banging on about for weeks about angles to Polaris (but naturally only working in the northern hemisphere) apparently don't work on a globe but work on this half globe he has put forward.

Is this the moment Jeremy Beadle appears?

Why has someone put in so much effort to come out with that?

I don't normally like to use internet memes but I think the regulars on the thread had this moment together this morning. We can feel happy we have all shared something:
Logon or register to see this image
 
payne said:
Russians sending a film crew up there

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

I’ve just been reading about NASA’s DART programme where they intend to smash a spacecraft into a comet to alter it’s trajectory.

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Last edited:
Kevj said:
I’ve just been reading about NASA’s DART programme where they intend to smash a spacecraft into a comet to alter it’s trajectory.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

comets don't exist mate. ya not read the thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top