Put a flat earthier into space

[payne]

Time to give up. This berk is at best on a wind-up, one of the better ones seen on here admittedly, but a wind-up nonetheless, or he has serious mental and personality issues. God forbid he has children.

wind up or not the mental health issues are obvious. He really should speak with someone who may help him get better.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But the rest of my statement

What rest of the statement?
One answer covers it all.

 

[DaveH]

Try to burn anything in an extreme low pressure environment and it will not burn to do anything.
As for me saying I burned rocket fuel in a low pressure environment. I did nothing of the sort.

You see in a low pressure environment there is little reaction to action meaning you're not going to create any meaningful movement.
In your space vacuum it offers nothing for any reaction to the action of expelled gases to move the object/rocket.

No burning is going to happen because you need a medium for it to burn in.
I don't need to put rocket fuel under low pressure you can use any flammable substance to show it will not burn in an extreme low pressure environment.

The thing is I do not need to prove this. People can do it for themselves and physically see it, so this isn't even an argument.

What?

It is well established that to burn you need fuel, heat and oxygen. Rocket fuel contains an oxidiser, often liquid oxygen to complete the "fire triangle" and allow combustion.

Again a claim made by you turns out to be an idle speculation waved around as fact and proof against something. When you say people can do this for themselves, only if they get rocket fuel.

So another argument made by you with zero evidence to back it up. You demand proof about many things but fail to look for proof in what you say yourself.

Rockets exist, space exists, space missions exist, deal with it.

It doesn't just happen to fit, it's made to fit the narrative.

What makes one cell of your body work?

But you can't demonstrate how the moon can actually work with your dome can you? Again it is idle speculation with zero proof of your belief. At least you can make a working mechanial model of the real solar system and see that it compares to what you observe. You can't make a working mechanical model of a carbon arc dome with secondary reflections because it fails completely.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It is well established that to burn you need fuel, heat and oxygen. Rocket fuel contains an oxidiser, often liquid oxygen to complete the "fire triangle" and allow combustion.

It allows combustion to make thrust from the rocket.
It then requires a medium to thrust against. That is where atmosphere comes in.
If you don't have them all your rocket does not lift off.

Again a claim made by you turns out to be an idle speculation waved around as fact and proof against something.

It's far from speculation. Like I said before you only have to go right down to the simplest forms to see what's what.

When you say people can do this for themselves, only if they get rocket fuel.

No rocket fuel needed Any flammable substance will suffice.

So another argument made by you with zero evidence to back it up.

Plenty.

You demand proof about many things but fail to look for proof in what you say yourself.

You can prove this yourselves, you don;t need me.

Rockets exist

Correct, they do.

, space exists

If you're talking empty warehouses or rooms or open spaces on Earth, then yes.
The space we're told about being a vacuum with stars and planets and what not just sitting there, does not exist except in fantasy world.

, space missions exist

Nope. As above.

, deal with it.

I am and I do. It's easy to deal with. Easy to understand the fantasy that it all is.

But you can't demonstrate how the moon can actually work with your dome can you?

It's a reflection.

Again it is idle speculation with zero proof of your belief. At least you can make a working mechanial model of the real solar system and see that it compares to what you observe. You can't make a working mechanical model of a carbon arc dome with secondary reflections because it fails completely.

All your stuff is on a platter for you. No thinking is required in order to argue it.

 

[DPTT]

@Nukehasslefan so what is beyond your earth model?

 

[BigPete]

Firstly it's a case of who are making the decisions.
This then runs right down the rabbit hole and will start a frenzy with some, so we'll leave it at that

Please elaborate further. Honestly interested in to what you think is the point of fooling everyone and pretending the earth is a globe.

 

[Churchlanelad]

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.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[DaveH]

It allows combustion to make thrust from the rocket.
It then requires a medium to thrust against. That is where atmosphere comes in.
If you don't have them all your rocket does not lift off.

It's far from speculation. Like I said before you only have to go right down to the simplest forms to see what's what.

No rocket fuel needed Any flammable substance will suffice.

Plenty.

You can prove this yourselves, you don;t need me.

Correct, they do.

If you're talking empty warehouses or rooms or open spaces on Earth, then yes.
The space we're told about being a vacuum with stars and planets and what not just sitting there, does not exist except in fantasy world.


Nope. As above.

I am and I do. It's easy to deal with. Easy to understand the fantasy that it all is.

It's a reflection.

All your stuff is on a platter for you. No thinking is required in order to argue it.

No experimenting, just sitting thinking about it and assuming it is true is just speculation with no proof.

Science is about discovery. It is about expanding on current thinking, testing the ideas and proving if they are incorrect.

Bullshit is sitting thinking about something, often things that you might wish to be true, then telling others.

What you have said is bullshit.

Same about the moon being a reflection of the sun. If you can demonstrate either with picture, video or diagram of how light from a central point can reflect up to be the sun, reflect down at the earth, while splitting and also reflecting again in a way that reflections on domes do not work at all, giving an different image, which is sometimes a crescent, showing craters with changing shadows and then reflecting down to earth, then I’ll eat humble pie and admit your daft idea could work.

Until then it is firmly in the unsubstantiated bullshit camp.

Not only that, because both counts of bullshit go well against established knowledge you then think the bullshit is true and everything else is conspiracy and cover up. That takes into paranoid bullshit.

Seriously, that is not healthy.

 

[payne]

No experimenting, just sitting thinking about it and assuming it is true is just speculation with no proof.

Science is about discovery. It is about expanding on current thinking, testing the ideas and proving if they are incorrect.

Bullshit is sitting thinking about something, often things that you might wish to be true, then telling others.

What you have said is bullshit.

Same about the moon being a reflection of the sun. If you can demonstrate either with picture, video or diagram of how light from a central point can reflect up to be the sun, reflect down at the earth, while splitting and also reflecting again in a way that reflections on domes do not work at all, giving an different image, which is sometimes a crescent, showing craters with changing shadows and then reflecting down to earth, then I’ll eat humble pie and admit your daft idea could work.

Until then it is firmly in the unsubstantiated bullshit camp.

Not only that, because both counts of bullshit go well against established knowledge you then think the bullshit is true and everything else is conspiracy and cover up. That takes into paranoid bullshit.

Seriously, that is not healthy.

simple things you can see for yourself. no need to test.

what discoveries?

 

[legend7]

Maybe take some time to think about what I've said.

I have and it doesn't make sense can you go into more detail explaining the motions.
Maybe do another sketch when you finally do the first sketch

 

[BigPete]

simple things you can see for yourself. no need to test.

what discoveries?

Spirit level in ya bath

 

[legend7]

Try to burn anything in an extreme low pressure environment and it will not burn to do anything.
As for me saying I burned rocket fuel in a low pressure environment. I did nothing of the sort.

You see in a low pressure environment there is little reaction to action meaning you're not going to create any meaningful movement.
In your space vacuum it offers nothing for any reaction to the action of expelled gases to move the object/rocket.

No burning is going to happen because you need a medium for it to burn in.
I don't need to put rocket fuel under low pressure you can use any flammable substance to show it will not burn in an extreme low pressure environment.

The thing is I do not need to prove this. People can do it for themselves and physically see it, so this isn't even an argument.

What?

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Nobby]

You must be logged on to see media items

And? I've seen star wars that was a film about rockets in a so called vacuum too

 

[Churchlanelad]

No experimenting, just sitting thinking about it and assuming it is true is just speculation with no proof.

Science is about discovery. It is about expanding on current thinking, testing the ideas and proving if they are incorrect.

Bullshit is sitting thinking about something, often things that you might wish to be true, then telling others.

What you have said is bullshit.

Same about the moon being a reflection of the sun. If you can demonstrate either with picture, video or diagram of how light from a central point can reflect up to be the sun, reflect down at the earth, while splitting and also reflecting again in a way that reflections on domes do not work at all, giving an different image, which is sometimes a crescent, showing craters with changing shadows and then reflecting down to earth, then I’ll eat humble pie and admit your daft idea could work.

Until then it is firmly in the unsubstantiated bullshit camp.

Not only that, because both counts of bullshit go well against established knowledge you then think the bullshit is true and everything else is conspiracy and cover up. That takes into paranoid bullshit.

Seriously, that is not healthy.

Like the saying goes, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[nahwee]

Don’t be silly. The moon is a secondary reflection of the sun, which is produced by a carbon arc and crystal projector. Now I know that a dome had never been produced that can have a circle projected on it and produce another clear circle elsewhere, but superfluid helium domes can right. Now the really clever thing about this secondary reflection is that sometimes it is not even another circle, but a crescent, which appears in a totally predictable way.

The secondary reflection seems to move independently, appearing at different distances to the sun over the course of a month.

Now to observers with a telescope they can see what look exactly like craters. Now these patterns are completely different to the sun spots which don’t appear on the secondary reflection at all. And if you watch those craters over the course of a few hours and especially days, you see shadows change in a way exactly consistent with mountains and crater walls on a ball of rock, but that is just brainwashing kicking in.

A lunar eclipse might look like a shadow across the moon and seem impossible, but refraction.

It is predicted using magical maths because it just happens to fit.

All make sense?

No, try some paint thinners and have another read.

That is so simple it just might work!

 

[DaveH]

Like the saying goes, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Not come across that phrase before, but I like it. It makes a lot of sense.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

@Nukehasslefan so what is beyond your earth model?

Beyond as in outside of it?
If so I'd say other Earth cells just like ours, potentially.

Please elaborate further. Honestly interested in to what you think is the point of fooling everyone and pretending the earth is a globe.

Ok, what if we aren't the one's making the decisions.
What if the one's we think are making the decisions are just puppets for a higher intelligence or something like that. Not from so called outer space but from actual Earth itself.

This will open a new can of worms for the frenzied to get right on me.

Science is about discovery. It is about expanding on current thinking, testing the ideas and proving if they are incorrect.

I have absolutely nothing against that which I've been saying.

Bullshit is sitting thinking about something, often things that you might wish to be true, then telling others.

I agree and this is what we are debating over.

What you have said is bullshit.

What I have said about what?
My model?
If so then it's not passed off as factual so isn't bull.

Same about the moon being a reflection of the sun. If you can demonstrate either with picture, video or diagram of how light from a central point can reflect up to be the sun, reflect down at the earth, while splitting and also reflecting again in a way that reflections on domes do not work at all, giving an different image, which is sometimes a crescent, showing craters with changing shadows and then reflecting down to earth, then I’ll eat humble pie and admit your daft idea could work.

I can't get to any centre so that's out of the question, as I keep saying time and time again.
Can you get to your moon or your sun and verify them or are you left to observe them in the sky and accept what you're told?

Until then it is firmly in the unsubstantiated bullshit camp.

I agree. Anything I say can easily be thrown into that just as much as what you're saying. This is why we're debating it all.

Not only that, because both counts of bullshit go well against established knowledge you then think the bullshit is true and everything else is conspiracy and cover up.

Nope. I don't think bull is true. That makes no sense. If I knew it was bull then I wouldn't believe it. If I suspected a truth I would accept it. If I know a truth I would believe it.
As simple as that.
You're projecting IMO.

That takes into paranoid bullshit.

It depends on how paranoia is construed in terms of what's being argued.
I'd say we're all paranoid in many aspects of life. It's just a case of what strikes it.

Seriously, that is not healthy.

Life is not healthy and we're all in on it.

You must be logged on to see media items

That's in no vacuum nor extreme low pressure.
Pay attention to this one and listen to the pump being on which is continuing to keep low pressure against anything attempted to be ignited/burned.

Nothing is going to have thrust in extreme low pressure, which means so called space rockets are fiction.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[payne]

More wonderful cod philosophy. Fantastic!

 

[DaveH]

More wonderful cod philosophy. Fantastic!

And notice how the tricker questions that should pin him down on details are answered with questions, often about something different.

e.g.Same about the moon being a reflection of the sun. If you can demonstrate either with picture, video or diagram of how light from a central point can reflect up to be the sun, reflect down at the earth, while splitting and also reflecting again in a way that reflections on domes do not work at all, giving an different image, which is sometimes a crescent, showing craters with changing shadows and then reflecting down to earth, then I’ll eat humble pie and admit your daft idea could work.
I can't get to any centre so that's out of the question, as I keep saying time and time again.
Can you get to your moon or your sun and verify them or are you left to observe them in the sky and accept what you're told?

Sorry formatting all over pasting from a tablet, but this is not even a coherent conversation. You know the moments in the Commons where Starmer makes a really good point about Covid handling and Boris thumps on the table and rants about Brexit? I’m reminded of that.

He can’t produce a diagram or a ‘lab’ demonstration of light reflecting off a dome in a way that concave mirrors don’t work, because I personally can’t go to the moon?

 

[payne]

And notice how the tricker questions that should pin him down on details are answered with questions, often about something different.

e.g.Same about the moon being a reflection of the sun. If you can demonstrate either with picture, video or diagram of how light from a central point can reflect up to be the sun, reflect down at the earth, while splitting and also reflecting again in a way that reflections on domes do not work at all, giving an different image, which is sometimes a crescent, showing craters with changing shadows and then reflecting down to earth, then I’ll eat humble pie and admit your daft idea could work.

I can't get to any centre so that's out of the question, as I keep saying time and time again.
Can you get to your moon or your sun and verify them or are you left to observe them in the sky and accept what you're told?

Sorry formatting all over pasting from a tablet, but this is not even a coherent conversation. You know the moments in the Commons where Starmer makes a really good point about Covid handling and Boris thumps on the table and rants about Brexit? I’m reminded of that.

He can’t produce a diagram or a ‘lab’ demonstration of light reflecting off a dome in a way that concave mirrors don’t work, because I personally can’t go to the moon?

It sill amazes me that he believes he above all knows better than everyone else on the planet. Either that or everyone, including yourself, is a liar or fool.

The arrogance is next level.

I'd still like to know are there any conspiracies he doesn't follow.

I'd take a guess he's an anti vaxer, climate hoaxer, holocaust denier, brexiter at least.