Put a flat earthier into space

[DaveH]

Fancy going to court to try and take part in a hoax

You must be logged on to see external links

As if Jeff Bezoss is real. He is clearly just an internet avatar.

 

[What A Waster]

As if Jeff Bezoss is real. He is clearly just an internet avatar.

Show me what you mean by avatar.

 

[Churchlanelad]

You must be logged on to see external links

It’s a short article, see if it reminds you of anyone.

 

[DaveH]

You must be logged on to see external links

It’s a short article, see if it reminds you of anyone.

That description is pretty much spot on

 

[payne]

You must be logged on to see external links

It’s a short article, see if it reminds you of anyone.

I watched some TED Talk a while back where the person basically said the same thing but with the added component of narcissism

 

[nahwee]

I'll do a sketch. It'll look garbage but I'll do one on paper.
Just be patient.

Did this ever happen?
Did we get the sketch?

 

[Nobby]

Did this ever happen?
Did we get the sketch?

I'm surprised you even need to ask

 

[payne]

I'm surprised you even need to ask

if he's so sure on his knowledge why will the sketch explanation be anything other than spot on?


actually I know..........why?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

“Are you answering this to number 2 quote?”

“Are you answering this to number 3 quote?”

Given that you gave three numbered points to which I gave three numbered responses you really don’t need to ask this, unless it’s just deflection.

As for your first point, yes, I do know what a planetarium is and how it works, but it shows the sky as seen from a global Earth.

How does it?

I asked you to show one that can accurately display what we can all see, but from the viewpoint of your cell.

You see it.

You can’t, because it isn’t possible. Someone in Australia has a full 180 degree panorama of sky to look at, as does someone in UK. But with entirely different stars/constellations.

Because some are too distant from those areas but you do see some constellations upside down, right?
Why?
The projector will answer that question.

1.The seating plan of the planetarium would have to be set out to represent the land masses of your cell-based Earth. The people from more northern places would have to sit near the centre while those from the so-called southern hemisphere would have to sit further out. How come they’d still see the same projected display as those from the north?

It's a small planetarium. It's not going to offer everything we view on a big Earth at any standpoint.

2.How would it accurately project the divide between day and night?

Atmosphere dissipating the light from a focused sun reflection.
Like the security light in your garden or a spotlight or a carbon arc search light ...etc.

3.How many projectors are needed to display everything we can observe from Earth?

one.

4.5 and 6. Who made the projectors? Who installed them? What was there before them?

Natural.

7.If they’re natural and 4,5 and 6 don’t apply, how do they update themselves and adapt every time we supposedly launch another so-called satellite?

We don't launch satellites into space.

8.If the dome is constantly melting and re-freezing and reacting to waves of varying pressure, how come we see no deformation of the projection?

We will see waves. We'll see movement of atmosphere up to the dome but at distance to us it will just be that.

9.If it’s a diffuse reflector, how does it reflect sharp images?

Sharp images of what?

10. If we are not to use knowledge passed on to us by others, or by schooling or learning then the same must surely apply to you.

Who said you're not to use it?
First of all you have to differentiate from using actual knowledge of reality to actually using so called knowledge of something that is not provable.

For instance, you can go to school and learn about Jason and the Argonauts or the Minotaur or dinosaurs from 60 million years ago and so on and so on.
If you read enough books and listen to people who've already done so you will be marked on your ability to recall what was instilled into you for the reward of high marks and a certificate that may put you in a higher certificate group than others.
You could then go on to study more of the same and become a teacher yourself in this certain section of knowledge you gained.

The thing is, how much of it is the truth?
You could become an expert on anything taught in a reality in terms of being a mechanic of electrical engineer or computer designer and such and you can use it in normal life just like you can use history in normal life.

You can learn about all the constellations in that sky and be told about planets and space and probes and blah blah blah and become an expert on it. You can become so adept at mapping what you've been shown in the sky. And so on.

But what do you really know in term of absolute truths of what you're mapping in the sky?
You can be told you're mapping big balls of fire that you manage to see the light from millions of years ago and you can be happy that it's a truth to you.

You can pass all of this on but ask yourself what reality are you passing on against what perceived reality is being passed on.

How then is so much of what you claim is lifted straight from the flat earthers bible?

None that I know of.

With the density of air being 1.225kg per m3... and so called gravity being caused by air pushing things down...

To keep this simple imagine a square shaped well or a mine shaft. It is 1mx1m. So every metre down is another cubic metre.
If i went 30 metres down a well/shaft and weighed myself would I be 36kg heavier?

No because you would need to weigh yourself and would need a scale in which to do that. You displace whatever dense atmosphere you are in and so would a scale.
Plus you're trying to correlate atmosphere with water pressure

But surely if its low in the sky and 40 times as far away that will negate that?

How do you mean?

You may have a formula for your layers of density you could share and we will work it out together?

A formula as in how? You mean sitting here throwing out equations and what not?
It's about putting your mind to work on it if you're interested or simply throwing it away as a waste of your time. That's your choice.

Pendulum, how do you explain if you put it in say inuvik/alaska (I nearly said the north pole but you don't believe in that) it will rotate once clockwise nearly every 24 hours, but if you put it in Antarctica or even santa cruz province it will rotate anti clockwise at roughly the same speed.

The pendulum is swinging backwards and forwards and on a pivot.The pendulum itself is moved by atmospheric movement in a pressure because atmosphere moves around the Earth towards the centre, gaining is movement the closer to the centre you get as the vortex builds.
Depending on where you're stood on that circle will depend on how yous et up your pendulum base clock or skittles or whatever is used to show movement one way or the other.


No globe required.

If you put it in Ecuador on what we call the equator it doesn't rotate at all.

Again, it depends on the set up position.

Can you explain that or how that will happen on your flat/lemon squeezer world.

I've tried.

You can substitute any locations near the far and south poles and the equator and it still happens.

You must be logged on to see external links

And the same answer applies.

But you can see further if you view every other direction but horizontal?

No, you can see more clearly through ever lessening atmosphere due to the angle of view.
You perception is you thinking you see farther because you magnify something your naked eye cannot focus on until you magnify.

Have a serious think about what I'm about to say.
A telescope or binoculars etc, are just a larger version of a microscope.

Your view can be X 50 and so on and so on and so on.
Think of your telescope as your big microscope.

A microscope allows you to see matter in more detail on a glass plate under that scope.
You can see a speck of dust that you couldn't see with your naked aye whilst stood up looking down at the plate but the microscope brought it into view and even magnified it more so you could see more detail.

You know you can't see farther than the plate so you know you're merely magnifying what is on it.

Transfer that to your telescope looking up at the sky or out to sea or over land, etc.

Millions and billions of miles into space? Nahhhhhhhhhh. It's all about sitting down and realising the story may be fictionalised.

 

[Nobby]

How does it?

You see it.

Because some are too distant from those areas but you do see some constellations upside down, right?
Why?
The projector will answer that question.


It's a small planetarium. It's not going to offer everything we view on a big Earth at any standpoint.

Atmosphere dissipating the light from a focused sun reflection.
Like the security light in your garden or a spotlight or a carbon arc search light ...etc.


one.

Natural.

We don't launch satellites into space.

We will see waves. We'll see movement of atmosphere up to the dome but at distance to us it will just be that.

Sharp images of what?


Who said you're not to use it?
First of all you have to differentiate from using actual knowledge of reality to actually using so called knowledge of something that is not provable.

For instance, you can go to school and learn about Jason and the Argonauts or the Minotaur or dinosaurs from 60 million years ago and so on and so on.
If you read enough books and listen to people who've already done so you will be marked on your ability to recall what was instilled into you for the reward of high marks and a certificate that may put you in a higher certificate group than others.
You could then go on to study more of the same and become a teacher yourself in this certain section of knowledge you gained.

The thing is, how much of it is the truth?
You could become an expert on anything taught in a reality in terms of being a mechanic of electrical engineer or computer designer and such and you can use it in normal life just like you can use history in normal life.

You can learn about all the constellations in that sky and be told about planets and space and probes and blah blah blah and become an expert on it. You can become so adept at mapping what you've been shown in the sky. And so on.

But what do you really know in term of absolute truths of what you're mapping in the sky?
You can be told you're mapping big balls of fire that you manage to see the light from millions of years ago and you can be happy that it's a truth to you.

You can pass all of this on but ask yourself what reality are you passing on against what perceived reality is being passed on.



None that I know of.

No because you would need to weigh yourself and would need a scale in which to do that. You displace whatever dense atmosphere you are in and so would a scale.
Plus you're trying to correlate atmosphere with water pressure

How do you mean?

A formula as in how? You mean sitting here throwing out equations and what not?
It's about putting your mind to work on it if you're interested or simply throwing it away as a waste of your time. That's your choice.

The pendulum is swinging backwards and forwards and on a pivot.The pendulum itself is moved by atmospheric movement in a pressure because atmosphere moves around the Earth towards the centre, gaining is movement the closer to the centre you get as the vortex builds.
Depending on where you're stood on that circle will depend on how yous et up your pendulum base clock or skittles or whatever is used to show movement one way or the other.


No globe required.




Again, it depends on the set up position.

I've tried.

And the same answer applies.

No, you can see more clearly through ever lessening atmosphere due to the angle of view.
You perception is you thinking you see farther because you magnify something your naked eye cannot focus on until you magnify.

Have a serious think about what I'm about to say.
A telescope or binoculars etc, are just a larger version of a microscope.

Your view can be X 50 and so on and so on and so on.
Think of your telescope as your big microscope.

A microscope allows you to see matter in more detail on a glass plate under that scope.
You can see a speck of dust that you couldn't see with your naked aye whilst stood up looking down at the plate but the microscope brought it into view and even magnified it more so you could see more detail.

You know you can't see farther than the plate so you know you're merely magnifying what is on it.

Transfer that to your telescope looking up at the sky or out to sea or over land, etc.

Millions and billions of miles into space? Nahhhhhhhhhh. It's all about sitting down and realising the story may be fictionalised.

It would have been quicker and more informative to post a sketch of your world model.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What? You have burned rocket fuel in extreme low pressures? Can you say where you got hold of the rocket fuel, where you got it from? How did you create the extreme low pressures?

Do you still have the equipment to do a short video? That would be amazing to see and repeat.

What rocket fuel are you thinking of?

Yeah I'd love to see that too, even more than his sketch.
@Nukehasslefan if its a time management thing, please show us you burning rocket fuel before you do the sketch.

I did post a video ages ago proving that you do get propulsion in a vaccum even from a can of pop but he didn't reply to that.

Really? Show me.

That is a lot of waffle and deflection and again one of your favourite words "compartmentalisation". Another hand wave term, say that and the problem goes away. That was in response to my question about how the masses of data is shared massively world wide, the opposite of compartmentalisation.

It's not a case of it being any favourite word, it's a word that describes what I've just explained about how people do not have to know what's what about a story, they just have to be made to feel they're part of it..

On the technical side you struggle to explain why anything works.

Such as?

On the conspiracy side you struggle to explain how on earth you could do anything that big.

What big?

But most of all you keep avoiding the questions why and why make the lie more and more complicated year on year? Neither make any logical sense.

More complicated as in, how?
I'd say it was even easier as time went on with more technology to pass it off.

My perception of hundreds of thousands involved is because that is the numbers working in space research with access to the data.

Access to what data and what space research?
Astrophysicists? Astronomers? Rocket builders or scientists?
Today they're knocking rockets up 10 a penny.
We're getting told how cheap it is one minute and how expensive it is another minute.
Build a rocket light enough to get into space and call it the falcon heavy or make it 3000 tonnes and stick a few engines on it. and go to the moon.

Have a background of people cheering and back patting and a bit of canned woooing and such.
Rockets going short range ballistic for a short period. No issue.
Rockets going into space. Not a chance.

The whole field of space and astronomy is about the sharing of massive data sets.

Fine but it's about who shares what.

Why do I have that perception? From the reports and papers coming out of the many many organisation with access to these sorts of data. Are these people real? Possibly not, but then why fake all these people. However one person involved in a lot of this data, the sharing, presenting and supporting research based on it is me. I'm pretty sure I'm real and not telling lies to myself.

Nobody is saying you are telling lies.
What are you following?

I know from working in the field of research and data sharing, communicating and partnering up with other institutes keeping the massive data sharing going. Attending conferences with other people doing the same from their sites working together asking "How can we do this better".

I have no issue with something that has application in reality.

There is no compartmentalisation.

There's always compartmentalisation from the few to the many.

Oh and fake space signals being sent from aircraft (that never land) or mountain tops . Literally no idea have you?

Not sure what you mean by this.

You’re saying that a layer of air 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.

Up and down is based on dense mass stacking. Densest means down. Less dense means up.
Just stacked and layered matter/molecules or whatever anyone wants to attribute to what matter is.

“They're stacked according to dense mass of molecules.
The more molecules that are stacked the more compressed the below molecules become and the less compressed the above molecules become.”

Oh, so now they don’t decide, ok.

Energy decides the stacking by vibration/friction and frequency..

What magical force makes the molecules above press down on those below in order to compress them?

The molecules themselves by resisting the above and using the below as their foundation.

What is stopping them pushing upwards instead?

They do but as a resistance to anything above.
It's like you laying down and someone laying on top of you. You have to resist that mass by using your own natural body to use the foundation below you.
Same kind of thing only in a different format.

To everyone in the planetarium, Polaris would be high overhead. If everyone turned their backs away from the middle they would see something different on the dome.

In reality (as your said earlier) people further away from the centre see Polaris lower and lower in the sky (a fact he agreed to a few weeks back but seems to have back tracked on now) as you go south.

I haven't backtracked, this is you trying to find ways to make out I have.
I stick by what I said.

This amount is exactly consistent with moving south on a globe earth.

Does a plane stay overhead with your looking vertical as it moves away from your position? No.
So why would a point of light stay overhead if you moved away from its position?

Those who get far enough south that they can't see Polaris any more (i.e. in the southern hemisphere or the outer edges of the planetarium) stand with their backs to the centre/north and in the planetarium all see something different. In the real world they all see the southern cross.

The scale is a tad different, don't you think?

There is very little comparison between what is observed across the globe as to what is observed in a planetarium.

Of course, because it's not a globe.

A planetarium gives the view an individual might see sat in one place and everyone in the same place. It does not and can not represent the different views seen by people in the real world.

The real one will if you go outside and understand it to be anything but a globe we supposedly walk upon..

The major reason for that is we live on a f***ing globe but some people are too stupid/paranoid/attention seeking to see it.

The major reason is because we do not walk upon a spinning globe.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Who said you're not to use it?
First of all you have to differentiate from using actual knowledge of reality to actually using so called knowledge of something that is not provable.

The thing is, how much of it is the truth?
You could become an expert on anything taught in a reality in terms of being a mechanic of electrical engineer or computer designer and such and you can use it in normal life just like you can use history in normal life.

You can learn about all the constellations in that sky and be told about planets and space and probes and blah blah blah and become an expert on it. You can become so adept at mapping what you've been shown in the sky. And so on.

But what do you really know in term of absolute truths of what you're mapping in the sky?
You can be told you're mapping big balls of fire that you manage to see the light from millions of years ago and you can be happy that it's a truth to you.

You can pass all of this on but ask yourself what reality are you passing on against what perceived reality is being passed on.

Who said not to use knowledge gained from others?
The arrogant git who demands evidence but rejects anything 'learned' or 'schooled' rather than self experienced.
The one picture of Polaris with star trails is all the evidence you need in order to know that whatever shape the Earth is, it's rotating. It really is that simple.
You can deflect all you like into long discussions that only show how little you understand on another subject, but the fact remains that you or anyone who chooses to could go and take the same shot and see the same evidence. You don't even need to be 'schooled into thinking those points of light are stars'. You simply have to look at them.

Naturally occurring projectors is one thing, but ones that update themselves to show satellites is clearly nonsense.

"We don't launch satellites into space."

Whatever you think we do or don't do with them, they are there to be seen in the sky. Either your fictional projectors are projecting them, or someone is adding them with another projector.
No, a planetarium does not and can not show your version of the sky. Yes, there will be places where some of the same constellations are visible in both hemispheres, but there are many visible only in one or the other. You can get a map of the whole sky, it shows all you can see from any point on Earth, but to see all of it on a dome would require a full 360 degree coverage. Not a dome, but a sphere.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It was an either/or thing.

Either a. ridiculous, impossible and demonstrably incorrect

or

b. Simple, observable and correct.

You rubbished the second option as it makes no sense to you, but ignored the first, why? Do you think the first one is correct? Or do you just want it to go away?

All the points of light move over and around the dome and will all appear to move at different speeds depending on the distance they are away from the observer.
No globe required for this.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

All the points of light move over and around the dome and will all appear to move at different speeds depending on the distance they are away from the observer.
No globe required for this.

Then they would appear differently shaped to each observer.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yet again I am dragged back in - I should really learn.

Then learn.

Light is instantaneous it has no speed hence it doesn't travel anywhere so why is it affected by air density?

Why can you see light through one piece of paper but start losing it with the next placed over it until you cannot see it?
Dense mass and the same applies with atmosphere or water or whatever.

Because of friction and sound obviously. Light is friction.
Friction is light.

Remember?

Light is the result of what makes it, which is vibration/friction and frequency.

what a waste of materials. Could be used to make clothes for poor kids

You must be logged on to see external links

They could certainly donate the wellies to allotment holders or even fishermen, etc. Maybe they will.

 

[taipeisafc]

Then learn.

Why can you see light through one piece of paper but start losing it with the next placed over it until you cannot see it?
Dense mass and the same applies with atmosphere or water or whatever.

Light is the result of what makes it, which is vibration/friction and frequency.


They could certainly donate the wellies to allotment holders or even fishermen, etc. Maybe they will.

But if light has no speed it is instantaneous - it effectively instantly teleports from one place to another, it isn't travelling so cannot be stopped by anything. If light travelled without motion is could not be stopped if it can be stopped by bits of paper then it must have a speed as the light is stopped by arresting it.

Refraction works by changes in speed / wavelength in different materials :-

General explanation​

You must be logged on to see external links

When a wave moves into a slower medium the wavefronts get compressed. For the wavefronts to stay connected at the boundary the wave must change direction.
A correct explanation of refraction involves two separate parts, both a result of the wave nature of light.

1. Light slows as it travels through a medium other than vacuum (such as air, glass or water). This is not because of scattering or absorption. Rather it is because, as an
   You must be logged on to see external links
   , light itself causes other
   You must be logged on to see external links
   particles such as , to oscillate. The oscillating electrons emit their own electromagnetic waves which interact with the original light. The resulting "combined" wave has wave packets that pass an observer at a slower rate. The light has effectively been slowed. When light returns to a vacuum and there are no electrons nearby, this slowing effect ends and its speed returns to c.
2. When light enters, exits or changes the medium it travels in, at an angle, one side or the other of the is slowed before the other. This asymmetrical slowing of the light causes it to change the angle of its travel. Once light is within the new medium with constant properties, it travels in a straight line again

It it doesn't have a speed how can it be refracted?

If light is made by vibration / friction and frequency (how can something be made by frequency?) then it must have finite energy hence can be stopped thus must have a speed.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Who said not to use knowledge gained from others?

I don't know...who said it?

The arrogant git who demands evidence but rejects anything 'learned' or 'schooled' rather than self experienced.

Not at all.
As I keep saying time and time and time and time and time again I accept a lot of stuff. Absolutely lots of stuff.
The issue you have is, I question stuff which you believe and the main one being the globe you believe in, so that by your reasining means I simply do not accept anything.
Don;t get me wrong. You carry on. I'm just reiterating what I said.

The one picture of Polaris with star trails is all the evidence you need in order to know that whatever shape the Earth is, it's rotating.

Or the points of light are.

It really is that simple.

It is to be fair if you look up and see movement knowing you aren't moving. Pretty easy to get it that whatever is moving is up in that sky.

You can deflect all you like into long discussions that only show how little you understand on another subject, but the fact remains that you or anyone who chooses to could go and take the same shot and see the same evidence.

The evidence is there and it's not evidence of any spinning globe...at all.

You don't even need to be 'schooled into thinking those points of light are stars'. You simply have to look at them.

To look at then without being schooled would be to understand it's them that's moving and not the Earth under your feet.

Naturally occurring projectors is one thing, but ones that update themselves to show satellites is clearly nonsense.

Nothing to do with satellites.
Anything man made that's put into the sky is what it is. It's nothing to do with what's projected from Earth central.

"We don't launch satellites into space."

Whatever you think we do or don't do with them, they are there to be seen in the sky.

In the sky. Not space.

Either your fictional projectors are projecting them, or someone is adding them with another projector.

All kinds of stuff can be sent into the sky and some to actually stay up tehre for long periods depending on how they're configured. But not fictional space.

No, a planetarium does not and can not show your version of the sky.

No, not in its entirety.

Yes, there will be places where some of the same constellations are visible in both hemispheres, but there are many visible only in one or the other.

Yep and that's down to being on different areas of landmass that does not offer their light back to that area.

Then they would appear differently shaped to each observer.

Why?

 

[taipeisafc]

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Why?

Because if you were to project for example, a perfect circle onto your dome, you would only have to move a few miles before it appeared to be an ellipse.
The one picture of Polaris with star trails is all the evidence you need in order to know that whatever shape the Earth is, it's rotating.

Or the points of light are.

Explain the mechanism by which they all co-ordinate their different speeds so as to appear in a stable, unchanging pattern.
Then explain how they do this while circling Polaris, and why Polaris alone stands more or less motionless.
Then calculate the chances that the one and only 'point of light' to do this sits directly upon our celestial pole.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But if light has no speed it is instantaneous - it effectively instantly teleports from one place to another, it isn't travelling so cannot be stopped by anything.

It can be stopped by dense mass stopping the reflection.

If light travelled without motion is could not be stopped if it can be stopped by bits of paper then it must have a speed as the light is stopped by arresting it.

It doesn't have motion. It is instant.

Refraction works by changes in speed / wavelength in different materials :-

General explanation​

You must be logged on to see external links

When a wave moves into a slower medium the wavefronts get compressed. For the wavefronts to stay connected at the boundary the wave must change direction.
A correct explanation of refraction involves two separate parts, both a result of the wave nature of light.

1. Light slows as it travels through a medium other than vacuum (such as air, glass or water). This is not because of scattering or absorption. Rather it is because, as an
   You must be logged on to see external links
   , light itself causes other
   You must be logged on to see external links
   particles such as , to oscillate. The oscillating electrons emit their own electromagnetic waves which interact with the original light. The resulting "combined" wave has wave packets that pass an observer at a slower rate. The light has effectively been slowed. When light returns to a vacuum and there are no electrons nearby, this slowing effect ends and its speed returns to c.
2. When light enters, exits or changes the medium it travels in, at an angle, one side or the other of the is slowed before the other. This asymmetrical slowing of the light causes it to change the angle of its travel. Once light is within the new medium with constant properties, it travels in a straight line again

It it doesn't have a speed how can it be refracted?

Because the waves and angles change direction of the reflection.
You can reflect light from hitting a point by putting a barrier in the way and deflecting it as you are showing. You don't stop the light you simply reflect it or deflect it/refract it.
It's instant. No speed.

If light is made by vibration / friction and frequency (how can something be made by frequency?)

Frequency is the result of how vibrations/friction is forced through energy.
The frequency is merely the amount of energy put into something under less to more pressure upon any medium/material.

then it must have finite energy hence can be stopped thus must have a speed.

It can only be stopped when the energy source stops that makes it and the stopping of that energy instantly stops the light.
I know what we're told but that's just to keep the utter bull alive, in my opinion.
To make believe stars and such still shine light from millions of years ago.
Light is instant.