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

Put a flat earthier into space

DaveH said:
You only think a right angle is the corner of a square because that is what you have been schooled into thinking. I understand, I used to think the same as you and it can take a lot to break free of the shackles of society and adapt a stance of alternate thinking.

Now I understand what a right angle is an I can say it is not what they want us to believe.

An angle doesn't have to be some magical way of measuring the direction of two lines. It makes zero sense for that to be the definition and there is absolutely no proof of these so called right angles existing. You have seen Terminator haven't you? Do you think there are killer robots in the future? That would clearly be crazy, so why think that right angles can exist?

All I can say is that we are all greater than right angles but you will no doubt think I'm just being obtuse.
Click to expand...
Spot on. Like it was written by the man himself
DaveH said:
You only think a right angle is the corner of a square because that is what you have been schooled into thinking. I understand, I used to think the same as you and it can take a lot to break free of the shackles of society and adapt a stance of alternate thinking.

Now I understand what a right angle is an I can say it is not what they want us to believe.

An angle doesn't have to be some magical way of measuring the direction of two lines. It makes zero sense for that to be the definition and there is absolutely no proof of these so called right angles existing. You have seen Terminator haven't you? Do you think there are killer robots in the future? That would clearly be crazy, so why think that right angles can exist?

All I can say is that we are all greater than right angles but you will no doubt think I'm just being obtuse.

Non-Mexican hats off to you. I think I got a bit of a reputation on these threads for carefully explaining simple things to him, but you have gone simpler than I ever dreamed was needed, stuck with it for longer and still failed.

I'm back to my old conundrum. This can't be real can it? Surely there are not people out there who can use a computer but function thinking like this or lacking this knowledge, it has to be a wind up. But why would someone spend years winding up strangers and even have an account on the Flat Earth forums, describe themselves as a flat earth scientist on there and even have them dismissing his 'musings' as mental? Real or wind up, both are deeply troubling.

That is a bit Extreme
Click to expand...

He won't acknowledge the right angle or the normal or tangent.
Why?

Because the diagram already looks like a sphere tilted at 23.5°, and the normal represents the axis.
 
Last edited:

DaveH said:
You only think a right angle is the corner of a square because that is what you have been schooled into thinking. I understand, I used to think the same as you and it can take a lot to break free of the shackles of society and adapt a stance of alternate thinking.

Now I understand what a right angle is an I can say it is not what they want us to believe.

An angle doesn't have to be some magical way of measuring the direction of two lines. It makes zero sense for that to be the definition and there is absolutely no proof of these so called right angles existing. You have seen Terminator haven't you? Do you think there are killer robots in the future? That would clearly be crazy, so why think that right angles can exist?

All I can say is that we are all greater than right angles but you will no doubt think I'm just being obtuse.

Non-Mexican hats off to you. I think I got a bit of a reputation on these threads for carefully explaining simple things to him, but you have gone simpler than I ever dreamed was needed, stuck with it for longer and still failed.

I'm back to my old conundrum. This can't be real can it? Surely there are not people out there who can use a computer but function thinking like this or lacking this knowledge, it has to be a wind up. But why would someone spend years winding up strangers and even have an account on the Flat Earth forums, describe themselves as a flat earth scientist on there and even have them dismissing his 'musings' as mental? Real or wind up, both are deeply troubling.

That is a bit Extreme
Click to expand...

He just can't accept it is the way it is because that's how nature has played out. We're 3rd rock from the sun, which is 93 miles away and we're on a tilt in the vacuum of space because of a cosmic accident. If things had been different life wouldn't have formed and we wouldn't be discussing Dome theory on the internet. It's the reason he laughed and the Feynman video where he was saying it was basically impossible to explain anything if you want to say why forever Some things just are. At some point one has to just accept the maths works etc. a 90 degree angle is a right angle, why? it's a between 89 and 91 degrees, why? Because it's quarter of a circle, why? A circle is 360 degrees, why? It has 360 segments of 1 degree, why? and on and on and on and on
 
Nukehasslefan said:
You see points of light depending on your position on Earth. You fail to see points of light until you move into a different position on Earth.
No globe required for any of this.
Click to expand...
Ok, I know you don't believe in stars or their demonstrably immense distance, so lets agree on points of light.
The constellations, made up as they are of points of light, are consistent and recognisable all over the globe/cell. Doesn't matter if you're in UK or USA, Ursa Major is Ursa Major and is going to appear exactly the same shape, whatever time of the night you see it, at whatever time of year. Yes, it rotates throughout the course of the night, its orientation changes, but the shape remains the same. It's always above the non-existent horizon in the so called northern hemisphere, and it rotates around a central point of light, let's call it Polaris. It's on this picture. No, I didn't take this one, but I have taken similar as can anyone with access to a camera and a sky.

Logon or register to see this image

It only takes about 30 - 60 seconds to show movement in these points of light, but you'll notice that the points of light toward the outer edge appear to have moved much further than those closer to the Polaris. There are only two possible explanations for this.
Either -
They all rotate at different speeds, yet magically communicate with every other point of light in order to synchronise their vastly different speeds so as to ALWAYS appear in the same patterns to you on Earth, no matter where on Earth you are AND they do this simultaneously for absolutely anyone who looks at the sky, anywhere, any time
OR
They don't move and the observer is on a f***ing globe that rotates!
If all of this were to be played out on your dome, not only would it have to be the most highly polished and geometrically precise and incredibly reflective surface ever, an absolutely perfect hemisphere, you would only have to travel a few hundred miles in any direction before all the constellations took on a different shape.

I know you will reject this, but it's simple and factual and I didn't find it in school, in a book or on YouTube. I mused.
Nukehasslefan said:
Your compass point will will show N if you're facing what is believed to be north. If you walk away from north your compass point is not going to point to north.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is exactly how a compass famously works
Nukehasslefan said:
Your planets are what's going on from the centre projected into the sky, not in a space vacuum millions of miles away. IMO.
Click to expand...
So there are multiple projectors, one for the Sun, another for the Moon, another for the planets or is it one for each? Then another for all the stars?
Polaris will gradually appear lower in the sky. Once it dips below the horizon, you’re in the Southern hemisphere. Prove me wrong.
Nukehasslefan said:
No it wouldn't. You angle changes as you move away from the point of light. Eventually your sight will lose hat point of light.
Click to expand...
Fail. There are not enough miles on Earth to let you travel far enough to lose sight of Polaris... unless it's a globe
It doesn’t matter, there is no up or down without gravity.
Nukehasslefan said:
Yes there is. It's all about density and what we know to be up or down due to exactly that.
Atmospheric stacking and layers are each different densities. We are at the bottom of that in terms of on solid ground and are crushed down to the ground but resisting that crush because our bodies simply displace the stacked layers which are then imparted back onto us.
Displacement is the key word.
That's how we stay down and that's why we distinguish down from up. More dense down and less dense up.

No gravity fiction required.
Click to expand...
Any pressure exerted by different layers of density will be equally in all directions at once the different densities will soon normalise to form a uniform layer.
There is no up or down without gravity.
Your stacked layers don’t get to decide.
Nukehasslefan said:
They actually do.
Click to expand...
Priceless!
 
Last edited:
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Ok, I know you don't believe in stars or their demonstrably immense distance, so lets agree on points of light.
The constellations, made up as they are of points of light, are consistent and recognisable all over the globe/cell. Doesn't matter if you're in UK or USA, Ursa Major is Ursa Major and is going to appear exactly the same shape, whatever time of the night you see it, at whatever time of year. Yes, it rotates throughout the course of the night, its orientation changes, but the shape remains the same. It's always above the non-existent horizon in the so called northern hemisphere, and it rotates around a central point of light, let's call it Polaris. It's on this picture. No, I didn't take this one, but I have taken similar as can anyone with access to a camera and a sky.

Logon or register to see this image

It only takes about 30 - 60 seconds to show movement in these points of light, but you'll notice that the points of light toward the outer edge appear to have moved much further than those closer to the Polaris. There are only two possible explanations for this.
Either -
They all rotate at different speeds, yet magically communicate with every other point of light in order to synchronise their vastly different speeds so as to ALWAYS appear in the same patterns to you on Earth, no matter where on Earth you are AND they do this simultaneously for absolutely anyone who looks at the sky, anywhere, any time
OR
They don't move and the observer is on a f***ing globe that rotates!
If all of this were to be played out on your dome, not only would it have to be the most highly polished and geometrically precise and incredibly reflective surface ever, an absolutely perfect hemisphere, you would only have to travel a few hundred miles in any direction before all the constellations took on a different shape.

I know you will reject this, but it's simple and factual and I didn't find it in school, in a book or on YouTube. I mused.

Yes, that is exactly how a compass famously works

So there are multiple projectors, one for the Sun, another for the Moon, another for the planets or is it one for each? Then another for all the stars?
Polaris will gradually appear lower in the sky. Once it dips below the horizon, you’re in the Southern hemisphere. Prove me wrong.

Fail. There are not enough miles on Earth to let you travel far enough to lose sight of Polaris... unless it's a globe
It doesn’t matter, there is no up or down without gravity.

Any pressure exerted by different layers of density will be equally in all directions at once the different densities will soon normalise to form a uniform layer.
There is no up or down without gravity.
Your stacked layers don’t get to decide.

Priceless!
Click to expand...
A very good point about a different projector for each star. The above model would work if there was a projector for all stars and it just rotated, same as it does in a planetarium. However you then have to ask why you see different astronomical phenomena, such as supernova, nova, variable stars and parallax? Parallax is one of the killers. Yes the image in the projector could change to explain the first three, but you have to ask why. But with parallax then you have to ask why do the angles to some stars in relation to others change consistently year on year in a way that is exactly consistent with a planet orbiting a sun at 93 million miles? If the night sky was static, fair enough but day by day it changes.

So that leads you to an individual projector for each star. First of all you need a hell of a lot of them for each star (lets not even consider nebula), but then you have each star doing what you say and being projected in a way exactly consistent with rotation about a point as viewed from a spinning planet. Why?

Planets, comets, asteroids, moons of planets must each have to be it’s own projector, and these days the fake satellites too.

When you also consider the movement of the planets is consistent with a planet in orbit, it can’t all be a coincidence can it? This leads to the dome being designed to trick us and suggests an intelligence that laid these traps waiting for humans to evolve far enough to spot them.

A bit like God creating the earth with lambs, horses and humans, while burying dinosaur bones to trick us into thinking the world is much older than the bible suggests.
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Ok, I know you don't believe in stars or their demonstrably immense distance, so lets agree on points of light.
The constellations, made up as they are of points of light, are consistent and recognisable all over the globe/cell. Doesn't matter if you're in UK or USA, Ursa Major is Ursa Major and is going to appear exactly the same shape, whatever time of the night you see it, at whatever time of year. Yes, it rotates throughout the course of the night, its orientation changes, but the shape remains the same. It's always above the non-existent horizon in the so called northern hemisphere, and it rotates around a central point of light, let's call it Polaris. It's on this picture. No, I didn't take this one, but I have taken similar as can anyone with access to a camera and a sky.

Logon or register to see this image

It only takes about 30 - 60 seconds to show movement in these points of light, but you'll notice that the points of light toward the outer edge appear to have moved much further than those closer to the Polaris. There are only two possible explanations for this.
Either -
They all rotate at different speeds, yet magically communicate with every other point of light in order to synchronise their vastly different speeds so as to ALWAYS appear in the same patterns to you on Earth, no matter where on Earth you are AND they do this simultaneously for absolutely anyone who looks at the sky, anywhere, any time
OR
They don't move and the observer is on a f***ing globe that rotates!
If all of this were to be played out on your dome, not only would it have to be the most highly polished and geometrically precise and incredibly reflective surface ever, an absolutely perfect hemisphere, you would only have to travel a few hundred miles in any direction before all the constellations took on a different shape.

I know you will reject this, but it's simple and factual and I didn't find it in school, in a book or on YouTube. I mused.

Yes, that is exactly how a compass famously works

So there are multiple projectors, one for the Sun, another for the Moon, another for the planets or is it one for each? Then another for all the stars?
Polaris will gradually appear lower in the sky. Once it dips below the horizon, you’re in the Southern hemisphere. Prove me wrong.

Fail. There are not enough miles on Earth to let you travel far enough to lose sight of Polaris... unless it's a globe
It doesn’t matter, there is no up or down without gravity.

Any pressure exerted by different layers of density will be equally in all directions at once the different densities will soon normalise to form a uniform layer.
There is no up or down without gravity.
Your stacked layers don’t get to decide.

Priceless!
Click to expand...

all those replies and and sentences for multiple posts reminds me of his style but with more substance....... well done
DaveH said:
A very good point about a different projector for each star. The above model would work if there was a projector for all stars and it just rotated, same as it does in a planetarium. However you then have to ask why you see different astronomical phenomena, such as supernova, nova, variable stars and parallax? Parallax is one of the killers. Yes the image in the projector could change to explain the first three, but you have to ask why. But with parallax then you have to ask why do the angles to some stars in relation to others change consistently year on year in a way that is exactly consistent with a planet orbiting a sun at 93 million miles? If the night sky was static, fair enough but day by day it changes.

So that leads you to an individual projector for each star. First of all you need a hell of a lot of them for each star (lets not even consider nebula), but then you have each star doing what you say and being projected in a way exactly consistent with rotation about a point as viewed from a spinning planet. Why?

Planets, comets, asteroids, moons of planets must each have to be it’s own projector, and these days the fake satellites too.

When you also consider the movement of the planets is consistent with a planet in orbit, it can’t all be a coincidence can it? This leads to the dome being designed to trick us and suggests an intelligence that laid these traps waiting for humans to evolve far enough to spot them.

A bit like God creating the earth with lambs, horses and humans, while burying dinosaur bones to trick us into thinking the world is much older than the bible suggests.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the level to flat earth people think it is (well the dome variant of flat earth people). Some mass conspiracy where the projection is being manipulated and randomized with consistent events we can measure then the odd random one to throw us off.

He tries to marry mass indoctrination of the masses to science learning with religion as if they are the same (which is rubbish) also at the same time takes a massive leap of faith to believe in some massive global cover up with no evidence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top