• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

legend7 said:
You seem to have managed to spend a lot of time with a lot of replies yet this single very quick sketch may help us all understand and then there wouldn't be so many questions, it could be our gotcha moment when we all join your movement and begin seeking the truth.
Click to expand...
I will do one and it's not a desperate thing. You do not need to even argue anything until I produce the sketch and then you can re-engage into this particular orange squeezer debate.
legend7 said:
You don't accept geometry of circles even though maths proves it and can be tested and measured?
Click to expand...
There you go you see, you immediately go into this.

I said I do not accept the diagram offered.
Tell me why I should and then tell me what the entire point of it is.
 
Last edited:

DaveH said:
You get so far into explanations and then wave the maths away as magical concepts we are schooled into believing. He is taking the really basic concepts from the start to show it comes down to simple geometry. But you onow that don’t you, and are backing away early on this one.
Click to expand...

This is the truth
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It depends how it's looked at.
I could argue you could never make a 90 degree angle out of a circle and we could go right down the name calling, trolling and whatever else arguments.

Or I can simply ask someone to explain what they're trying to convey as a reality rather than just looking up finding a central point on a circle by use of geometry.
Explain it to the retard that I'm portrayed to be. That's what I want.

Anything is madness if it's outside of the accepted narrative.
Click to expand...
True, which does lead to the more philosophical question of what is unconventional genius with new unthought of concepts, and what is deranged?

Denial of a globe and rewriting almost all known science with no basis for either the rejection or the replacement, with a massive amount of evidence for the accepted narrative and a massive amount of evidence against rewritten science (a lot of which can be disproved at school), that one is not on the side of genius.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
There you go you see, you immediately go into this.

I said I do not accept the diagram offered.
Tell me why I should and then tell me what the entire point of it is.
Click to expand...
No if you look back he asked do you agree with the geometry of a circle.
Nukehasslefan said:
I will do one and it's not a desperate thing. You do not need to even argue anything until I produce the sketch and then you can re-engage into this particular orange squeezer debate.
Click to expand...
Tbh its not just me, it would save everyone a lot of time including yourself if you drew it so we could grasp the shape you describe, yet with no submerged continents/100 miles deep seas.
It's quite pertinent to the whole debate everyone is having.
It would have been less of an issue if you'd just agreed the world was flat.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
I will do one and it's not a desperate thing. You do not need to even argue anything until I produce the sketch and then you can re-engage into this particular orange squeezer debate.

There you go you see, you immediately go into this.

I said I do not accept the diagram offered.
Tell me why I should and then tell me what the entire point of it is.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you accept it?
What is incorrect about the diagram?
 
legend7 said:
No if you look back he asked do you agree with the geometry of a circle.
Click to expand...
What is the geometry of a circle?

legend7 said:
Tbh its not just me, it would save everyone a lot of time including yourself if you drew it so we could grasp the shape you describe, yet with no submerged continents/100 miles deep seas.
Click to expand...
A lot of time for what?
I'm an idiot, remember.
I'm the one that people give up on and then re-engage at regular intervals.
I'm the one whose ideas and explanations are pathetic and not in anyway the reality of those arguing with me.
So why are you saving time on anything?
Whatever I provide will absolutely never be classed as anything like ideal for any globe believer arguing in this particular topic, I would guess.

So basing it all on this, just sit back and chill out.
Whatever sketch comes will be ridiculed and all the rest so I don;t expect anything else so don;t fret over not getting one as of yet. 👍
legend7 said:
It's quite pertinent to the whole debate everyone is having.
Click to expand...
Everything is pertinent to the whole debate. It's why it's still running and will continue until people get bored or the facts are presented to shut it down.
legend7 said:
It would have been less of an issue if you'd just agreed the world was flat.
Click to expand...
How can I agree the world is flat when I don't see it as flat.
Flat to me is water but water in a trough full of submerged mounds and landmass raising out of it and a central gradual gradient/mound with land sitting on that.......is not....flat.
DPTT said:
Why don’t you accept it?
What is incorrect about the diagram?
Click to expand...
What's correct about it?
legend7 said:
@Nukehasslefan Is your lemon squeezer spinning then or stationery?
Click to expand...
It's not spinning but as for being stationary, no it's not entirely stationary because the dome moves in terms of waves as the energy moves over it.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
What is the geometry of a circle?


A lot of time for what?
I'm an idiot, remember.
I'm the one that people give up on and then re-engage at regular intervals.
I'm the one whose ideas and explanations are pathetic and not in anyway the reality of those arguing with me.
So why are you saving time on anything?
Whatever I provide will absolutely never be classed as anything like ideal for any globe believer arguing in this particular topic, I would guess.

So basing it all on this, just sit back and chill out.
Whatever sketch comes will be ridiculed and all the rest so I don;t expect anything else so don;t fret over not getting one as of yet. 👍

Everything is pertinent to the whole debate. It's why it's still running and will continue until people get bored or the facts are presented to shut it down.

How can I agree the world is flat when I don't see it as flat.
Flat to me is water but water in a trough full of submerged mounds and landmass raising out of it and a central gradual gradient/mound with land sitting on that.......is not....flat.

What's correct about it?
Click to expand...
Do you agree there is a circle?
A line running through the circle?
A line running alongside the circle?
Do you believe the words “normal” and “tangent” and they are written on the diagram?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
What is the geometry of a circle?

.

What's correct about it?
Click to expand...

Here we go again,he makes a statement that something is not correct/accurate. He is asked why is it wrong. He doesn't respond but he asks why is it right.

The fact this process is rinsed and repeated so many times is indicative of the fact he can't back up his position (on the odd occasion he states a definite position) and is just being contratian.
 
What A Waster said:
Why is maths being used in science fictional?
Click to expand...
to make this simple in terms of fictional use of maths let's use so called stars.
We're told stars are billions and trillions and quadrillions of miles away.
They're numbers and are broken down to light years meaning the speed of light has been told to us as being 186,000 miles per second and it would take a years worth of those seconds at that speed to be one single light year and we are told some stars are millions of light years away.
If people want to believe that utter hogwash, they're welcome to it.
I could use all kinds of stuff but I'm sure you get what I'm saying. No need to accept or deny it in writing on here.

What A Waster said:
What is the truth?
Click to expand...
The truth is literally that. A shown truth or a genuine reasoning for it to have a massive potential to be a truth.
Don't turn the midget into a Goliath by inventing a size over distance.
What A Waster said:
Clearly you don't accept maths as a thing.
Click to expand...
Maths is absolutely fine if it is used for genuine stuff.
Construction and all kinds of stuff. Even technical science...etc....etc...etc.
I have absolutely no issues with it if it can be proven.
DPTT said:
Do you agree there is a circle?
Click to expand...
Yes.
DPTT said:
A line running through the circle?
Click to expand...
Yes.
DPTT said:
A line running alongside the circle?
Click to expand...
Yes.
DPTT said:
Do you believe the words “normal” and “tangent” and they are written on the diagram?
Click to expand...
I believe they are words, yes.

Before we go into a deep hole on this, just explain how they show something in terms of what you're trying to portray.
Nobby said:
Here we go again,he makes a statement that something is not correct/accurate. He is asked why is it wrong. He doesn't respond but he asks why is it right.

The fact this process is rinsed and repeated so many times is indicative of the fact he can't back up his position (on the odd occasion he states a definite position) and is just being contratian.
Click to expand...
Or you can't back up your position.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
to make this simple in terms of fictional use of maths let's use so called stars.
We're told stars are billions and trillions and quadrillions of miles away.
They're numbers and are broken down to light years meaning the speed of light has been told to us as being 186,000 miles per second and it would take a years worth of those seconds at that speed to be one single light year and we are told some stars are millions of light years away.
If people want to believe that utter hogwash, they're welcome to it.
I could use all kinds of stuff but I'm sure you get what I'm saying. No need to accept or deny it in writing on here.


The truth is literally that. A shown truth or a genuine reasoning for it to have a massive potential to be a truth.
Don't turn the midget into a Goliath by inventing a size over distance.

Maths is absolutely fine if it is used for genuine stuff.
Construction and all kinds of stuff. Even technical science...etc....etc...etc.
I have absolutely no issues with it if it can be proven.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I believe they are words, yes.

Before we go into a deep hole on this, just explain how they show something in terms of what you're trying to portray.

Or you can't back up your position.
Click to expand...
So you accept that the lines intersecting show a right angle?
 
Nukehasslefan said:
So basing it all on this, just sit back and chill out.
Whatever sketch comes will be ridiculed and all the rest so I don;t expect anything else so don;t fret over not getting one as of yet.
How can I agree the world is flat when I don't see it as flat.
Flat to me is water but water in a trough full of submerged mounds and landmass raising out of it and a central gradual gradient/mound with land sitting on that.......is not....flat.



It's not spinning but as for being stationary, no it's not entirely stationary because the dome moves in terms of waves as the energy moves over it.
Click to expand...
I'm really interested though as you said mine was representative but that contradicts the sea depths, also you keep saying we aren't seeing it correctly so it would be great to see what you mean.

So how do you explain the movements of a foucault pendulum on your world?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top