Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

A sketch would be great, because I don’t think anyone really knows what you are trying to describe. At the moment it sounds like your world is deep oceans somehow sticking to a slope/curve, which clearly would not work.

It doesn't work because that's not what's happening on my map.
If it's pictures on the tiny scale it's naturally going to look like people think it looks.

No I know what you're saying but in that case it would look like a flat earth if all of the water is at the same level and land protrudes out of it, so nothing like the map you posted when you said not a flat earth.And if it is like your map with a very distinguishable raised centre then from where the bottom of South America meets the sea that sea would need to be hundreds if not thousands of miles deep.

Can you remember me saying 2 Earth shapes are basically my thoughts.
Remember?
That's the very reason I said it because it gives a better set up if you're looking at it from a gradual gradient point of view and not a tiny orange squeezer type set up.

If it was only as deep as the deepest ocean say 6 or 7 miles then that wouldn't even be noticeable over the distance from there to Alaska (6 mile slope over 9000 miles or so) so it wouldn't look like a an orange squeezer at all.

If you're stood at the shore does your Earth look like a small ball in the pictures you see?
Obviously not, so why would you even think you could picture a orange squeezer type Earth?

If you want to continue looking at it the way you think then you carry on.

 

[fyl2u]

No but everything to that shore line is higher than it, which is what I'm getting at. Apart from any inclines and indentations which flow or hold water within it, like rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and such.

So, shorelines are all on one level (I.E. "sea level") where it meets the sea, rather than some shorelines meeting the sea at higher elevation than others? So it's essentially a "flat earth" with a hollow mountain in the middle and curved up edges at the very limits rather than a true lemon squeezer shape with a slope to it all the way across the world?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

@Nukehasslefan can I ask why you seem to have a huge mistrust with authority and in particular science?

I don't think authority plays a fair game in many aspects. It doesn't mean it's all wrong and nor do I bother to go down that route. I generally accept a lot of authority but I can still question what I don't fully believe.
Acceptance and belief are two entirely different things.
As for science. I accept and believe all of science.
What I don't believe is many cases is what I find to be questionable stories passed off as a scientific. Which is what we're debating on here.

Everything which has been put forward to you in the main you have refuted and without any scientific evidence to refute these claims, just your “musings”

I'm refuting it for good reason. Nobody is proving me wrong.
Simple coming out with " your'e wrong" en masse is not proof that you are correct.

My musings do not need to be brought into anything. I don't pass them off as factual. You are passing your stuff off as factual without knowing the facts and purely based on acceptance of explained storylines.

 

[ned_werby]

Feeding of the troll is forbidden between dawn and dusk.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I try to stay out of this but when I see utter drivel like this I cannot, so gravity acts more strongly on less dense materials then does it - how on earth does that work.

Is the argument that gravity is mass attracting mass?
Isn't it Earth's large mass at the centre pulls down everything above it?
Have a think on that.

Potential energy is m.g.h - mass times acceleration due to gravity time height above grade as a less dense material has lower mass per unit volume gravity is less on a less dense material.

Ok, if that's so then tell me why they use the old hammer and feather experiment to argue gravity pulls equally on all masses?

Don't you see the silliness of the contradictions?

 

[fyl2u]

I'm refuting it for good reason. Nobody is proving me wrong.
Simple coming out with " your'e wrong" en masse is not proof that you are correct.

EVERYONE is proving you're wrong, you're just refusing to accept it out of stubbornness.

It's weird but you're clinging to so many "arguments from authority" like the 8 feet per mile squared nonsense that you've pulled directly from a flat Earth guidebook from 200 years ago that has been utterly disproven repeatedly in the time since its release.

 

[DPTT]

I don't think authority plays a fair game in many aspects. It doesn't mean it's all wrong and nor do I bother to go down that route. I generally accept a lot of authority but I can still question what I don't fully believe.
Acceptance and belief are two entirely different things.
As for science. I accept and believe all of science.
What I don't believe is many cases is what I find to be questionable stories passed off as a scientific. Which is what we're debating on here.


I'm refuting it for good reason. Nobody is proving me wrong.
Simple coming out with " your'e wrong" en masse is not proof that you are correct.

My musings do not need to be brought into anything. I don't pass them off as factual. You are passing your stuff off as factual without knowing the facts and purely based on acceptance of explained storylines.

This is why this thread could continue forever

For me anyway, their are a few very intelligent folk on here who either work in an industry where this affects them or have a deep interest in all this where they have provided as much data as possible where to most folk would be enough for people to at least accept some as being correct.

I don’t think anyone will ever change your mind like regardless of what they provide to you
But I have to say I do find it strange how thousands of years of research is just cast as bulshit without one bit of evidence from yourself to counter this research.

Each to their own, find your “musings” interesting but your dismissive attitude weird matey

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So, shorelines are all on one level (I.E. "sea level") where it meets the sea, rather than some shorelines meeting the sea at higher elevation than others?

Is a tide at one level always throughout the day?

So it's essentially a "flat earth" with a hollow mountain in the middle and curved up edges at the very limits rather than a true lemon squeezer shape with a slope to it all the way across the world?

In a way, yes.
All people have to do is to understand what I've been saying about a dome and no edge.
A cell.
So with it being a cell I can't show you a picture of a cell and say " there you are, this is Earth."

I use the orange squeezer or the Earth that is depicted as a yardstick to how the dges curve up into a dome and the centre is a gradual gradient to the centre where inside of it is what energy is coming from it covered by crystal on a large scale.

I'm starting to like you as a thinker.

 

[What A Waster]

It doesn't work because that's not what's happening on my map.
If it's pictures on the tiny scale it's naturally going to look like people think it looks.





Can you remember me saying 2 Earth shapes are basically my thoughts.
Remember?
That's the very reason I said it because it gives a better set up if you're looking at it from a gradual gradient point of view and not a tiny orange squeezer type set up.


If you're stood at the shore does your Earth look like a small ball in the pictures you see?
Obviously not, so why would you even think you could picture a orange squeezer type Earth?

If you want to continue looking at it the way you think then you carry on.

Why does the size of the drawing matter? I could look at a postcard with the Manhattan skyline on it and understand the buildings are tall. It doesn't need to be 60 feet wide for me to get a sense of the scale.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

EVERYONE is proving you're wrong, you're just refusing to accept it out of stubbornness.

No they aren't and yes, I am stubborn but for good reason.

It's weird but you're clinging to so many "arguments from authority" like the 8 feet per mile squared nonsense that you've pulled directly from a flat Earth guidebook from 200 years ago that has been utterly disproven repeatedly in the time since its release.

I have to use arguments from authority to argue the set up and to show contradictions.

I follow authority just like anyone else. It doesn't mean I have to believe it all. I can accept it and argue because of it without having to believe some of it.

 

[fyl2u]

Is a tide at one level always throughout the day?

In a way, yes.
All people have to do is to understand what I've been saying about a dome and no edge.
A cell.
So with it being a cell I can't show you a picture of a cell and say " there you are, this is Earth."

I use the orange squeezer or the Earth that is depicted as a yardstick to how the dges curve up into a dome and the centre is a gradual gradient to the centre where inside of it is what energy is coming from it covered by crystal on a large scale.

I'm starting to like you as a thinker.

The problem folks have been having since the start is that "cell" isn't a shape. Saying "it's not a sphere, it's a cell" tells us nothing about what shape you believe it is.

If you'd just said from the start "it's like a snowglobe but the edges curve up instead of being a hard angle, and there's a big hollow mountain in the middle of the bit of land the rest of you call the north pole" then there wouldn't be half as much confusion as there's been with you saying "no, no, it's a cell shape".

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This is why this thread could continue forever

For me anyway, their are a few very intelligent folk on here who either work in an industry where this affects them or have a deep interest in all this where they have provided as much data as possible where to most folk would be enough for people to at least accept some as being correct.

I don’t think anyone will ever change your mind like regardless of what they provide to you

Not until they can offer proof. And none has been put forward.

But I have to say I do find it strange how thousands of years of research is just cast as bulshit without one bit of evidence from yourself to counter this research.

I believe there's loads of evidence. The issue is in people willing to see it for that, instead of brushing it aside in favour of magical mysteries.
That's the key.

Each to their own, find your “musings” interesting but your dismissive attitude weird matey

I wouldn't expect anything else, seriously.
I'm the outcast in more ways than one, on here....but I'm the outcast simply by going against the accepted/believed grain of mainstream.

I would not expect anyone to say " ahhh, I think Nukey has a point. I'm starting to question it now." Because the immediate reaction to anyone doing that would be to be attacked and cast off as simply, a conspiracy nutter.

All I say is, anyone who wishes to question, just go and look at the stuff around you and ask yourself the questions against what you're told.
Do it for you and you only have your own locked in answers that nobody sees, so can't attack you for.

The nature of the beast is for people to follow he masses they're entrenched with and I fully understand that.

 

[fyl2u]

No they aren't and yes, I am stubborn but for good reason.

I have to use arguments from authority to argue the set up and to show contradictions.

I follow authority just like anyone else. It doesn't mean I have to believe it all. I can accept it and argue because of it without having to believe some of it.

So have you accepted yet that the "8 feet per mile squared" learned formula that you've been parroting since the start is not actually true because an oblate spheroidal earth is a different thing to a parabola?

Or are you still clinging to something that is absolutely clearly inarguably wrong because you learned it and refuse to "open your mind" to the possibility that this formula you learned from a long-dead fruitloop authority figure is incorrect?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why does the size of the drawing matter? I could look at a postcard with the Manhattan skyline on it and understand the buildings are tall. It doesn't need to be 60 feet wide for me to get a sense of the scale.

Because what you see of land in the map you put up is land sitting inside a massive concave moat. You're not looking at raised land within that moat. It appears like the land is submerged. All of it.
You know this is obviously not correct and so does anyone.

You also know that land is not sloping down a big mountain as shown.

Your perspective is to look at it like this and this is why you're confused about ocean levels around the concavity and convexity of the map.

The problem folks have been having since the start is that "cell" isn't a shape. Saying "it's not a sphere, it's a cell" tells us nothing about what shape you believe it is.

I'm sure you can picture a cell.

If you'd just said from the start "it's like a snowglobe but the edges curve up instead of being a hard angle, and there's a big hollow mountain in the middle of the bit of land the rest of you call the north pole" then there wouldn't be half as much confusion as there's been with you saying "no, no, it's a cell shape".

I've said it all. I've tried to explain it all with all kinds of analogies.
maybe you're late to the party or you've basically not botehred reading into too much, me being a nutter and all that.

 

[taipeisafc]

Is the argument that gravity is mass attracting mass?
Isn't it Earth's large mass at the centre pulls down everything above it?
Have a think on that.

Ok, if that's so then tell me why they use the old hammer and feather experiment to argue gravity pulls equally on all masses?

Don't you see the silliness of the contradictions?

The hammer and feather experiment shows the effect of drag and air resistance not gravity - the pull on each item is the same and in a very low pressure environment they hit the ground at the same time due to the lack of effective air resistance. Galileo even did experiments in the 16th century to show this (although some say they were thought experiments)

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[fyl2u]

I'm sure you can picture a cell.

A cell, absolutely.

Logon or register to see this image

I've said it all. I've tried to explain it all with all kinds of analogies.
maybe you're late to the party or you've basically not botehred reading into too much, me being a nutter and all that.

You haven't. Maybe nobody's ever told you this, but you're horrible at explaining things. Half the time your sentences are a jumbled mess of words that don't work together as a sentence and half of the rest of the time you're leaving out key parts of it as if you're assuming everyone can read your mind and will just automatically know what you mean.

 

[What A Waster]

Because what you see of land in the map you put up is land sitting inside a massive concave moat. You're not looking at raised land within that moat. It appears like the land is submerged. All of it.
You know this is obviously not correct and so does anyone.

You also know that land is not sloping down a big mountain as shown.

Your perspective is to look at it like this and this is why you're confused about ocean levels around the concavity and convexity of the map.

You put the map up not me.
You describe it as being like an orange squuezer (which you said on flatty forums).
You said it curves up towards the centre with a gradual gradient. This means the water in the southern atlantic ocean is gonna be hundreds of miles deeper than the north if south america is not to be submerged.

 

[fyl2u]

Or if you prefer, here's another cell...

Logon or register to see this image

 

[DPTT]

Not until they can offer proof. And none has been put forward.


I believe there's loads of evidence. The issue is in people willing to see it for that, instead of brushing it aside in favour of magical mysteries.
That's the key.

I wouldn't expect anything else, seriously.
I'm the outcast in more ways than one, on here....but I'm the outcast simply by going against the accepted/believed grain of mainstream.

I would not expect anyone to say " ahhh, I think Nukey has a point. I'm starting to question it now." Because the immediate reaction to anyone doing that would be to be attacked and cast off as simply, a conspiracy nutter.

All I say is, anyone who wishes to question, just go and look at the stuff around you and ask yourself the questions against what you're told.
Do it for you and you only have your own locked in answers that nobody sees, so can't attack you for.

The nature of the beast is for people to follow he masses they're entrenched with and I fully understand that.

The thing is and I cannot speak for everyone obviously I have tried to imagine and in some ways think that’s you maybe correct on if not everything but at least a few things.
But I cannot, not because I am a sheep but nothing what you say makes sense matey
The biggest things for me are your energy source in a hole in the earth and how it’s reflected with whatever. Now even you have to admit someone somewhere would have evidence of this huge hole.
Secondly is the cover up, this would have started thousands of years ago involving literally every scientific individual or group going, sorry but someone would have blown this cover?
Am all for questioning stuff matey

 

[fyl2u]

...and another cell...

Logon or register to see this image

....and some more cells...

Logon or register to see this image