Put a flat earthier into space

[Nobby]

Boredom?

I dunno but surely he can't believe some of the shite comes out with

But if he is "grounded" why seek attention in the form of ridicule.

 

[BigPete]

But if he is "grounded" why seek attention in the form of ridicule.

Some people like getting kicked in balls.

It's strange but they like it

 

[Nobby]

Some people like getting kicked in balls.

It's strange but they like it

Aye suppose so I have had mental health issues in the past and looking back my normal was anything but

 

[BigPete]

Aye suppose so I have had mental health issues in the past and looking back my normal was anything but

He's a canny bloke on other threads tbf he's not aggressive in this one either or insulting.

Just bonkers

 

[DaveH]

He's a canny bloke on other threads tbf he's not aggressive in this one either or insulting.

Just bonkers

He does get quite insulting. Spends a lot of time making out that we know nothing, can only repeat what we have been told parrot fashion, can’t think for ourselves, can’t work problems out for outselves, follow like sheep and have been conned.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

They do when one is the tangent to a circle and the other is the normal

So where is the reference point in order to gain the right angle?

But it has been shown to work since the last century.

Show to work as in, how?
A pendulum has been shown to swing and move around an area. What does it prove?
If anything it proves a circle, not a globe.

And if you dispute the poles existing why does it behave differently at the equator (or countries on what we call the equator on your lemon squeezer) Why would it be diffeent in just these areas even inside a building in case you bring up wind or pressure variations blah blah?

What do you mean by, behave differently?

It's f***ing bizarre behaviour. He's so scared that his world might come apart at the seams that he has spent seven entire pages worth of posts avoiding the question and then flat out denying that the most basic mathematical concepts of a tangent and a normal to circle.


Clearly I've gone too fast for you.

Let's start with one less line on the diagram.

If we draw a circle, and then draw a straight line that only just touches the edge of that circle, we call that the "tangent".

Logon or register to see this image

Do you agree?

Yep, left hand diagram is what they call the tangent.

 

[fyl2u]

Yep, left hand diagram is what they call the tangent.

You say "they".

Do you also call it a tangent?

So where is the reference point in order to gain the right angle?

The reference point is where they meet the edge of the circle.

If the tangent was further away or closer to the middle then it wouldn't be a tangent.

If the normal wasn't at a right angle to the tangent in the exact position where the tangent meets the circle (and therefore passes through the centre of the circle) then it wouldn't be the normal.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

Tell me how a so called planetarium works.
1. Is it the actual ceiling/dome that has visual light moving around it.
2. Is the actual seating area and building actually rotating?
3. Is there a projector somewhere that projects the images onto the dome?

Yes, that is exactly how a compass famously works

Compasses work as in, how?
How does a compass needle work?

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?

Whatever goes on inside Earth is what's being projected back into the sky.

Polaris will gradually appear lower in the sky. Once it dips below the horizon, you’re in the Southern hemisphere. Prove me wrong.

Prove it right.

Fail. There are not enough miles on Earth to let you travel far enough to lose sight of Polaris... unless it's a globe

That's because you wholeheartedly believe what you've been told. You go with a globe and what is said about it. Why would you argue any different?
You are willing to completely blank out atmospheric dense mass over distance that blocks out reflected light back to the eyes when arguing this type of stuff.
I understand your thoughts.

It doesn’t matter, there is no up or down without gravity.

In your world.
Atmospheric stacked and layered density dictates what is up and down to what's on Earth (not a spinning globe)...not fictional 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.

Nope. They stack and the reason they stack is energy push from within of matter that is pushed up below a more dense foundation to rest on that as a less dense layer.
And so on and so on.
The more layers in the stack the more each layer becomes more dense below than above.

This creates our up and down senses because our feet are in a more dense layer than our heads. Not by much but by enough layers to make a slight change but overall it's a squeeze back of the atmosphere displaced by the dense mass of our bodies within it.

No gravity required for any of this stuff.
Gravity is a fictional force used to push a global spinning Earth and how it supposedly works in a space vacuum...etc. Clever stories but utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Your stacked layers don’t get to decide.

Priceless!

Actually the stacked layers do get to decide.

You say "they".

Do you also call it a tangent?

I'll use anything that is to be argued for or against.
I go with what's told and argue whatever needs to be argued for or against.

The reference point is where they meet the edge of the circle.

Ok, we have an edge of a circle. Inner and outer.

If the tangent was further away or closer to the middle then it wouldn't be a tangent.

Ok I get all this.
The tangent line cannot intersect. I understand what it's saying.

If the normal wasn't at a right angle to the tangent in the exact position where the tangent meets the circle (and therefore passes through the centre of the circle) then it wouldn't be the normal.

Ok, so now we need to know how the normal comes about.

How does it work to become a right angle.
How do you find the centre and then the line through it to the tangent line and get 90 degrees.

What's the reference point that ensures it?

 

[monkeytassle]

Tell me how a so called planetarium works.
1. Is it the actual ceiling/dome that has visual light moving around it.
2. Is the actual seating area and building actually rotating?
3. Is there a projector somewhere that projects the images onto the dome?

Compasses work as in, how?
How does a compass needle work?


Whatever goes on inside Earth is what's being projected back into the sky.

Prove it right.

That's because you wholeheartedly believe what you've been told. You go with a globe and what is said about it. Why would you argue any different?
You are willing to completely blank out atmospheric dense mass over distance that blocks out reflected light back to the eyes when arguing this type of stuff.
I understand your thoughts.

In your world.
Atmospheric stacked and layered density dictates what is up and down to what's on Earth (not a spinning globe)...not fictional gravity.


Nope. They stack and the reason they stack is energy push from within of matter that is pushed up below a more dense foundation to rest on that as a less dense layer.
And so on and so on.
The more layers in the stack the more each layer becomes more dense below than above.

This creates our up and down senses because our feet are in a more dense layer than our heads. Not by much but by enough layers to make a slight change but overall it's a squeeze back of the atmosphere displaced by the dense mass of our bodies within it.

No gravity required for any of this stuff.
Gravity is a fictional force used to push a global spinning Earth and how it supposedly works in a space vacuum...etc. Clever stories but utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Actually the stacked layers do get to decide.

I'll use anything that is to be argued for or against.
I go with what's told and argue whatever needs to be argued for or against.

Ok, we have an edge of a circle. Inner and outer.

Ok I get all this.
The tangent line cannot intersect. I understand what it's saying.

Ok, so now we need to know how the normal comes about.

How does it work to become a right angle.
How do you find the centre and then the line through it to the tangent line and get 90 degrees.

What's the reference point that ensures it?

It's called maths mate. You might want to look it up.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It's called maths mate. You might want to look it up.

My god is 600 feet tall which is 7200 inches or 182880 millimetres.
Is my god real?
Do the maths add up?

Do the maths show a reality of my god?
Am I mistaken about my god or lying and the maths is made up about my god even though the maths add up?

Maybe you'll get your head around it.

 

[monkeytassle]

My god is 600 feet tall which is 7200 inches or 182880 millimetres.
Is my god real?
Do the maths add up?

Do the maths show a reality of my god?
Am I mistaken about my god or lying and the maths is made up about my god even though the maths add up?

Maybe you'll get your head around it.

Oh so you do believe in measuring stuff. Which is derived by science people.

 

[nahwee]

My god is 600 feet tall which is 7200 inches or 182880 millimetres.
Is my god real?
Do the maths add up?

Do the maths show a reality of my god?
Am I mistaken about my god or lying and the maths is made up about my god even though the maths add up?

Maybe you'll get your head around it.

 

[fyl2u]

Ok I get all this.
The tangent line cannot intersect. I understand what it's saying.

Right OK, we're getting somewhere.

The entire idea of a tangent is that if you have a circle and you draw a line that only just touches the outside of it without intersecting it, the angle either side of the point where it touches the circle is the same on both sides.

It can only work that way.

If the angle is any steeper or any shallower on either side, then the line causes an intersection, which means it isn't a tangent anymore.

Are we still with each other on this?

Ok, so now we need to know how the normal comes about.

How does it work to become a right angle.
How do you find the centre and then the line through it to the tangent line and get 90 degrees.

What's the reference point that ensures it?

The "normal" is just the name given to a line that is at a perfect 90 degree angle to the tangent at exactly the point where the tangent meets the circle.

If the line were further one way or the other from that point where the tangent meets the circle, then that line isn't the "normal".

The interesting thing about the "normal" is that if you continue drawing its line through to the middle of the circle, it perfectly lines up with the centre of the circle. It goes straight through it.

Are we still together on this?

You can even do it backwards....

If you draw a straight line from the very centre of a circle to any point on the edge of the circle, and then draw another line at a perfect 90 degree angle to that first line at exactly the point where it meets the edge of the circle with no overlaps so that no intersections occur, you will have drawn a "normal" and then the tangent to that normal.

Still with me?

 

[DaveH]

The lies and conspiracies are getting more elaborate this week:

You must be logged on to see external links

They built a big research ship to go around antartica, and the southern ocean, neither of which exist. Where will the ship go?

You must be logged on to see external links

They built a bit space telescope, to big to go in a rocket and it has to fold up. This is big news in the astronomy world and lots of people will be tracking the mission and the rocket. They are going to have to somehow dump it, but then have fake signals beamed back off the dome to trick all the mission scientists. These fakes are going to have to behave exactly like the instruments they designed, otherwise they will know something is amiss. Then there is realistic fake data to fool them. Or all the mission scientists are in on it and have dedicated a large part of their life developing an elaborate hoax.

Both sound far too complicated to me, and if the hoax is not 100% perfect, it risks exposing the whole thing. It would have been better for them to have just not bothered. I wonder what their motivations were.

 

[legend7]

Show to work as in, how?
A pendulum has been shown to swing and move around an area. What does it prove?
If anything it proves a circle, not a globe.


What do you mean by, behave differently?

I take it you haven't looked into them properly?

That's because you wholeheartedly believe what you've been told. You go with a globe and what is said about it. Why would you argue any different?
You are willing to completely blank out atmospheric dense mass over distance that blocks out reflected light back to the eyes when arguing this type of stuff.
I understand your thoughts.

So how come you say the reason ships etc disappear over the horizon Is the accumulation of the atmospheres mass over distance, which is less than a hundred miles.
Yet if I look at a star (tiny dot on your dome), then travel 2000 miles I can still see that same star just as clearly.

 

[DPTT]

Tell me how a so called planetarium works.
1. Is it the actual ceiling/dome that has visual light moving around it.
2. Is the actual seating area and building actually rotating?
3. Is there a projector somewhere that projects the images onto the dome?

Compasses work as in, how?
How does a compass needle work?


Whatever goes on inside Earth is what's being projected back into the sky.

Prove it right.

That's because you wholeheartedly believe what you've been told. You go with a globe and what is said about it. Why would you argue any different?
You are willing to completely blank out atmospheric dense mass over distance that blocks out reflected light back to the eyes when arguing this type of stuff.
I understand your thoughts.

In your world.
Atmospheric stacked and layered density dictates what is up and down to what's on Earth (not a spinning globe)...not fictional gravity.


Nope. They stack and the reason they stack is energy push from within of matter that is pushed up below a more dense foundation to rest on that as a less dense layer.
And so on and so on.
The more layers in the stack the more each layer becomes more dense below than above.

This creates our up and down senses because our feet are in a more dense layer than our heads. Not by much but by enough layers to make a slight change but overall it's a squeeze back of the atmosphere displaced by the dense mass of our bodies within it.

No gravity required for any of this stuff.
Gravity is a fictional force used to push a global spinning Earth and how it supposedly works in a space vacuum...etc. Clever stories but utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Actually the stacked layers do get to decide.

I'll use anything that is to be argued for or against.
I go with what's told and argue whatever needs to be argued for or against.

Ok, we have an edge of a circle. Inner and outer.

Ok I get all this.
The tangent line cannot intersect. I understand what it's saying.

Ok, so now we need to know how the normal comes about.

How does it work to become a right angle.
How do you find the centre and then the line through it to the tangent line and get 90 degrees.

What's the reference point that ensures it?

How do you know the atmosphere is more dense at your feet than your head?
How do you measure this?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Oh so you do believe in measuring stuff. Which is derived by science people.

I never said I didn't.
It seems you think I did.

Right OK, we're getting somewhere.

The entire idea of a tangent is that if you have a circle and you draw a line that only just touches the outside of it without intersecting it, the angle either side of the point where it touches the circle is the same on both sides.


It can only work that way.

If the angle is any steeper or any shallower on either side, then the line causes an intersection, which means it isn't a tangent anymore.

Are we still with each other on this?

Are you arguing the angle of the line or the angles for each side of the circle the line runs over from the pivot point?

The "normal" is just the name given to a line that is at a perfect 90 degree angle to the tangent at exactly the point where the tangent meets the circle.

And how do you get a perfect 90 degree angle on the circle?

If the line were further one way or the other from that point where the tangent meets the circle, then that line isn't the "normal".

Yep and we need to find this normal and know it by reference on the circle.
How?

The interesting thing about the "normal" is that if you continue drawing its line through to the middle of the circle, it perfectly lines up with the centre of the circle. It goes straight through it.

You first have to find the centre of the circle.

Are we still together on this?

That depends.

You can even do it backwards....

If you draw a straight line from the very centre of a circle to any point on the edge of the circle, and then draw another line at a perfect 90 degree angle to that first line at exactly the point where it meets the edge of the circle with no overlaps so that no intersections occur, you will have drawn a "normal" and then the tangent to that normal.

Still with me?

Of course I'm with you but me being with you does not mean you don;t get to just tell me this stuff you need to explain how and why it works.

The lies and conspiracies are getting more elaborate this week:

You must be logged on to see external links

They built a big research ship to go around antartica, and the southern ocean, neither of which exist. Where will the ship go?

You must be logged on to see external links

They built a bit space telescope, to big to go in a rocket and it has to fold up. This is big news in the astronomy world and lots of people will be tracking the mission and the rocket. They are going to have to somehow dump it, but then have fake signals beamed back off the dome to trick all the mission scientists.

Dump what?

These fakes are going to have to behave exactly like the instruments they designed, otherwise they will know something is amiss.

Behave as in, how?
You mean behave is space as you would see it with your own telescope or what they show us on TV?

Then there is realistic fake data to fool them.

What data?

Or all the mission scientists are in on it and have dedicated a large part of their life developing an elaborate hoax.

All, as in who are the all?

Both sound far too complicated to me, and if the hoax is not 100% perfect, it risks exposing the whole thing.

You mean like the supposed moon landings being so perfect and what not?

It would have been better for them to have just not bothered. I wonder what their motivations were.

I wonder.

 

[What A Waster]

I never said I didn't.
It seems you think I did.

Are you arguing the angle of the line or the angles for each side of the circle the line runs over from the pivot point?

And how do you get a perfect 90 degree angle on the circle?

Yep and we need to find this normal and know it by reference on the circle.
How?


You first have to find the centre of the circle.

That depends.

Of course I'm with you but me being with you does not mean you don;t get to just tell me this stuff you need to explain how and why it works.


Dump what?

Behave as in, how?
You mean behave is space as you would see it with your own telescope or what they show us on TV?

What data?

All, as in who are the all?


You mean like the supposed moon landings being so perfect and what not?

I wonder.

Can you explain how the moon landings are faked?

 

[ned_werby]

There's no such thing as a straight line. Or a circle.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

“Tell me how a so called planetarium works.
1. Is it the actual ceiling/dome that has visual light moving around it.
2. Is the actual seating area and building actually rotating?
3. Is there a projector somewhere that projects the images onto the dome?”



1.Show me a planetarium that can accurately show how the sky as we can see it works for a non-globe world.

2. Not in relation to the projected images, but then neither has it been there throughout all recorded history.

3. Yes, and it’s easily found and proved to be there. You not only have no projector and no dome, but you have no mechanism by which they would work and nothing to suggest that they even exist.

Either every one of billions of stars is centred on and revolving around the one star that just happens to sits at or near our celestial pole, all inexplicably moving at different speeds, yet co-ordinated so as to keep the same pattern for any observer on the Earth.

OR

We are on a rotating globe.



“Actually the stacked layers do get to decide.”

Ok, go a bit deeper on this one for me. You’re saying that a layer of air, differing from the air nearby only in density, actually gets to decide which way is up and down, and that the result of these decisions, made by air, is what we know as gravity.

Tell us how that works.