Put a flat earthier into space

[Bobthebasted]

Would love to know on his map where the bloody sun is meant to be
I cannot see a huge big hole with crystals etc??

They think it's all Hollywood mate.. I think it got mentioned on this thread earlier about a documentary on netflicks. Called Behind the curve.

Its a good watch tbh. They are nuts and love the conspiracy malarkey.

 

[ned_werby]

Did you see the drawing I posted of your map with the water level at the top dot.
It would fill the whole lower bowl?

Covering most of the land masses on your map......
Can't believe I'm doing this but......
Using your map I have marked on roughly the Americas and Europe then filled a quite shallow plate using your bowl analogy.
As you can see even a shallow plate submerges south America and a lot of Europe.....

You must be logged on to see external links

Pissing myself here man, and yes, the "water" is flooding my feet in a downward motion

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Absolute bollocks as you can't explain how water can be at the same level near the top of your map and at the lowest point.
Think id have more respect if like most of your stuff you just said you don't claim to have the answers but we're not on a ball blah blah blah.

If you can't understand what I've told you then I can't help you.
As for gaining any respect from you. I seek none and want none. I'm offering my opinion and explaining from my side. You not wanting to get it or not liking it, is not my concern.

It doesn't flow up. As you pour water into the bowl then the water level rises, which I assume is what you mean.

Of course it's what I mean.

That water level rises evenly (to the naked eye) across the whole surface of the bowl. When I stop pouring it sits level.

Yep, it sits level.

If I made a lemon squeezer shape out of putty it would fill the lower trench in a ring and not touch either the inner our outer slopes once I had stopped pouring.

It would but maybe you're thinking it'll fill them to the top which is obviously not the case and needn't be.

If I poured directly into the trench then it would never touch the upper slopes.

It would raise up the slopes as you pour. It has to . It has to conform to the container it is in which includes the obvious sides.

If I drew a sketch map of the world on it, there would be no northern or southern oceans.

The oceans ring the Earth so it's every direction from whatever point of navigation by compass points.

Those landmasses in the trench would be under water.

Maybe you haven't been reading what I said. No problem.

I've not been able to travel to the southern hemisphere for a number of years, but I know the north sea is still there and if we had lost China, South America and half of Africa, I feel someone would have mentioned it. Or did it go unnoticed because of Brexit and Covid filling the news?

Not sure what you're getting at. Everything is where you know it is by your travel but you're just not doing it on a spinning globe.
Nothing has to be lost to the oceans.

Mate I've drew diagrams and even defaced a cereal bowl he just doesn't understand or can't explain how a point of water at the top of his map can be at the same level as a point in the bowl he spouts some bollocks about a shallow gradient over a big distance which is irrelevant as they would still be the same level according to his bathtub.

You can't understand what's been said. It's your issue.

I know. Every argument he had against the globe earth now breaks down his own musings for what the earth looks like. Any explanation is just word salad. The sentences barely string together. But look way back at what I said about a theory that conspiracy theorists have a hero complex.

Most posts are designed for attention, to keep people coming back asking for more and in their eyes they are elevated to being a wise old sage who others are now seeking for their wisdom. “well we all know what that means don’t we?” is a common phrase with some. Usually the answer to such is ”no, no idea what you are talking about”. Similar to the lockdown conspiracies “ there has been a gradual erosion of our freedoms for decades it is obvious where it is going”. All statements that say nothing but invite questions. Tell us more.

Look at how much he is loving this. Paints a picture of a lemon squeezer earth after months of saying the earth is not a globe but not saying flat either. Finally we get something and then it is follower by “that is not the true shape”. Please ask more questions. There is clear enjoyment at turning the phrases around on us. After months of us pointing out he understands very little about anything, most of his words are random gibberish badly stuck together. We reply what (he gets is question), he implies we are stupid, he gets a reaction.

It is all a feedback loop. Watch through posts over the next few days, every one there to provoke a reaction.

My advice would be to ignore me. Why can't you do this?

Yeah I find the whole thing totally fascinating tbh, his "map" has been his downfall tbh as none of his ideas or theory's make any sense whatsoever now, would have made more sense if he had said it was totally flat actually.

No it wouldn't.
You just don't get what's said because you're fixated with a high up mountain and think landmass sits on it with oceans sitting on the side of the mountain.
I've explained why this isn't the case but you appear to overlook it for whatever reason.

That's fine with me but you'll stay puzzled until you understand what's been said.

 

[monkeytassle]

The map I posted was to illustrate what I believe Earth to be, with a dome on top.
Do you see a dome on top of it?
I also mentioned the landmass is not to be taken as my set up. Look back for that if you overlooked it or weren't in the topic at the time.
Having said that my explanation still stands with this Earth shape.
The Raised centre is like I mentioned. Gradual over massive distance before you even reach the part of it that is inhospitable. To man and machine.

Yep but they would be lakes and rivers flowing from high to low.
The oceans will be on the same level. I've explained it so you just need to get your head around it, if you want to....for your own mindset. If not, no issue here.


It doesn't matter what it's said to be in terms of deep. The water is level, unhindered.
How deep it goes is of absolutely no issue. It's how it raises to the landmass which comes from the bowl itself and the lakes and rivers that flow into it.


Yep the little model does look like quite a slope. If you can figure out a way to make it like I explained then go for it.....or....just accept what I'm saying about the gradual gradient over thousands of miles.

I'm not really interested in that at the minute. It serves no purpose for what I'm saying.

Are you aware of the coriolis effect?

If you can't understand what I've told you then I can't help you.
As for gaining any respect from you. I seek none and want none. I'm offering my opinion and explaining from my side. You not wanting to get it or not liking it, is not my concern.

Of course it's what I mean.


Yep, it sits level.

It would but maybe you're thinking it'll fill them to the top which is obviously not the case and needn't be.

It would raise up the slopes as you pour. It has to . It has to conform to the container it is in which includes the obvious sides.

The oceans ring the Earth so it's every direction from whatever point of navigation by compass points.


Maybe you haven't been reading what I said. No problem.

Not sure what you're getting at. Everything is where you know it is by your travel but you're just not doing it on a spinning globe.
Nothing has to be lost to the oceans.

You can't understand what's been said. It's your issue.

My advice would be to ignore me. Why can't you do this?

No it wouldn't.
You just don't get what's said because you're fixated with a high up mountain and think landmass sits on it with oceans sitting on the side of the mountain.
I've explained why this isn't the case but you appear to overlook it for whatever reason.

That's fine with me but you'll stay puzzled until you understand what's been said.

Why do you think we see the sun and moon once a day each? Jesus christ. This is beyond stupid.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Are you aware of the coriolis effect?

I'm aware of what they say about it, yes.
Why?

Why do you think we see the sun and moon once a day each? Jesus christ. This is beyond stupid.

Because it moves around the circle once a day.
What's your issue?

 

[monkeytassle]

I'm aware of what they say about it, yes.
Why?

Because it moves around the circle once a day.
What's your issue?

What who say about it?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What who say about it?

What?

 

[DaveH]

If you can't understand what I've told you then I can't help you.
As for gaining any respect from you. I seek none and want none. I'm offering my opinion and explaining from my side. You not wanting to get it or not liking it, is not my concern.

Of course it's what I mean.


Yep, it sits level.

It would but maybe you're thinking it'll fill them to the top which is obviously not the case and needn't be.

It would raise up the slopes as you pour. It has to . It has to conform to the container it is in which includes the obvious sides.

The oceans ring the Earth so it's every direction from whatever point of navigation by compass points.


Maybe you haven't been reading what I said. No problem.

Not sure what you're getting at. Everything is where you know it is by your travel but you're just not doing it on a spinning globe.
Nothing has to be lost to the oceans.

You can't understand what's been said. It's your issue.

My advice would be to ignore me. Why can't you do this?

No it wouldn't.
You just don't get what's said because you're fixated with a high up mountain and think landmass sits on it with oceans sitting on the side of the mountain.
I've explained why this isn't the case but you appear to overlook it for whatever reason.

That's fine with me but you'll stay puzzled until you understand what's been said.

Ah, I get it now. Water conforms to its container, unless that container is a lemon squeezer earth, then anything goes. Unchartered indentations that would not work anyway explain all. Gotcha, thanks for clarifying,

 

[monkeytassle]

What?

You said they said about whayv in relation to the coriolis effect. Which is demonstrably a fact.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ah, I get it now. Water conforms to its container, unless that container is a lemon squeezer earth, then anything goes. Unchartered indentations that would not work anyway explain all. Gotcha, thanks for clarifying,

Water conforms to any container and anything within it.
You carry on arguing about how water can cover a ball that spins and do what we see it doing.

That's the senseless stuff.

You said they said about whayv in relation to the coriolis effect. Which is demonstrably a fact.

What?
Can you actually explain what you mean?

 

[monkeytassle]

Water conforms to any container and anything within it.
You carry on arguing about how water can cover a ball that spins and do what we see it doing.

That's the senseless stuff.

What?
Can you actually explain what you mean?

If you drain water on the northern hemisphere and you do similar on the southern hemisphere. And you do the same on the equator.

Please tell me what happens

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If you drain water on the northern hemisphere and you do similar on the southern hemisphere. And you do the same on the equator.

Please tell me what happens

Drain water into where?

 

[monkeytassle]

Drain water into where?

It doesn't matter. A bowl. A lake.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It doesn't matter. A bowl. A lake.

It would help if you can explain what you're actually on about.

 

[monkeytassle]

It would help if you can explain what you're actually on about.

OK so. This is science so it might be difficult for you.

In the different hemisphere (note the word sphere) water drains differently.

Now. If you had a disc. This would not be possible. Because of science.

Do you believe science? Empirical and not anecdotal science from your idiot mates?

Do you understand gravity?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

OK so. This is science so it might be difficult for you.

In the different hemisphere (note the word sphere) water drains differently.

Why are you talking about draining?
Are you talking about rivers going from high to low or lakes doing the same thing?

Here's how it works in real life. Real science.
Water conforms to the walls of the container it is put in.

Water does not conform to the exterior of those external walls unless it sits inside another container which contains those exterior walls, as in my set up.

That's real science and water level is also real science.
What isn't real science is water staying level on a spinning ball. That's not real science, it's utter fiction.

Now. If you had a disc. This would not be possible. Because of science.

On a flat disc I agree. It would cascade off the disc if the disc had no edging. But my Earth mindset is of it not being a disc, so it's irrelevant.

Do you believe science? Empirical and not anecdotal science from your idiot mates?

Science is the Earth and everything to do with it.
If you mean, do I believe in scientists, then the answer is absolutely, yes, as long as the proof is there or the evidence is there that allows me to accept it's real scientific legitimacy.

Unfortunately it's not all scientific truth. And this is where the issue lies and why it's being questioned.

Do you understand gravity?

Nope, not in the least. There's a good reason for that. It does not exist.
You don't understand it as any reality. You just believe it's a thing because you believe in all the stuff gravity supposedly offers, like spinning balls in a space vacuum where water supposedly covers 70% of it, mostly miles deep and yet it acts like we see it, as in staying on the ball when we all know what really happens.

But magical gravity to the rescue, just like the moon and sun and ...well... you know, all the other gunk we've been forced fed.

Or........or..... can you tell me what gravity is?

 

[monkeytassle]

Why are you talking about draining?
Are you talking about rivers going from high to low or lakes doing the same thing?

Here's how it works in real life. Real science.
Water conforms to the walls of the container it is put in.

Water does not conform to the exterior of those external walls unless it sits inside another container which contains those exterior walls, as in my set up.

That's real science and water level is also real science.
What isn't real science is water staying level on a spinning ball. That's not real science, it's utter fiction.


On a flat disc I agree. It would cascade off the disc if the disc had no edging. But my Earth mindset is of it not being a disc, so it's irrelevant.

Science is the Earth and everything to do with it.
If you mean, do I believe in scientists, then the answer is absolutely, yes, as long as the proof is there or the evidence is there that allows me to accept it's real scientific legitimacy.

Unfortunately it's not all scientific truth. And this is where the issue lies and why it's being questioned.


Nope, not in the least. There's a good reason for that. It does not exist.
You don't understand it as any reality. You just believe it's a thing because you believe in all the stuff gravity supposedly offers, like spinning balls in a space vacuum where water supposedly covers 70% of it, mostly miles deep and yet it acts like we see it, as in staying on the ball when we all know what really happens.

But magical gravity to the rescue, just like the moon and sun and ...well... you know, all the other gunk we've been forced fed.

Or........or..... can you tell me what gravity is?

I'm not answering all of those because it's the ramblings of an idiot.

However I will tell. You what gravity is. Can you tell me why you are standing on the floor?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'm not answering all of those.

However I will tell. You what gravity is. Can you tell me why you are standing on the floor?

My dense mass against atmospheric pressure.
Can you tell me what gravity is?

 

[legend7]

It would raise up the slopes as you pour. It has to . It has to conform to the container it is in which includes the obvious sides.

The oceans ring the Earth so it's every direction from whatever point of navigation by compass points.

But on your map they don't just ring the earth, go back to the map I posted of 2 dots on a single unbroken body of water which starts at the low level uninhabitable, unpenetrable ice ring and still exists at the higher level near the uninhabitable, unpenetrable, unobservable, made of crystal, heat/sound/cold/light/sun/moon/stars generator is.
Or are you saying on that map that those 2 dots are at the same level even though one is clearly at the top of the slope no matter how gradual or long that slope is?

 

[payne]

My dense mass against atmospheric pressure.
Can you tell me what gravity is?

true dat