Put a flat earthier into space

[DaveH]

No. Water wouldn't curve away, it would flow away.

Are you getting impatient?

Flow away to where?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How far is the sun away from each stick?
21 June midday how does the shadow have different lengths at North Pole, in uk, in Morocco, South Africa and South Pole? All at the same time?

Distance and angle, like I said.

Flow away to where?

Get a ball and pour water on it. Or make your ball oblate and pour water on it.
Let me know where the water ends up.

 

[DaveH]

Distance and angle, like I said.

Get a ball and pour water on it. Or make your ball oblate and pour water on it.
Let me know where the water ends up.

This is like the whole "earth wobbling around in it's orbit" debate isn't it? You take the model that we refer to as accepted reality, change how it works then condemn it as something that doesn't work and replace it with your earth-shape-of-the-day.

You have said it yourself plenty times that reality is that water is sticking to a spinning ball and the water conforms to the shape of that ball. There is no top, there is no bottom, gravity attracts the water to the centre. You need to accept that is the standard model because that is what you are trying to disprove.

So, if you have still water held to a massive globe by gravity, what does your spirit level tell you? What would that look like on a globe?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This is like the whole "earth wobbling around in it's orbit" debate isn't it? You take the model that we refer to as accepted reality, change how it works then condemn it as something that doesn't work and replace it with your earth-shape-of-the-day.

This isn't about replacing it, it's about knowing what it isn't. It's also knowing how everything's been shoehorned over time to fit the narrative when that narrative's been shown up to be lacking.

You have said it yourself plenty times that reality is that water is sticking to a spinning ball and the water conforms to the shape of that ball.

No I haven't. That's the story you believe as your reality.

There is no top, there is no bottom, gravity attracts the water to the centre. You need to accept that is the standard model because that is what you are trying to disprove.

I do accept that is the standard model schooled into people.
And this is why I'm arguing it, because it's wrong on so many counts just by simple logic and observation.

So, if you have still water held to a massive globe by gravity, what does your spirit level tell you?

What would that look like on a globe?

Nothing because it can't happen for two reasons. Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon and gravity is just a complete and utter loads of nonsense to make it appear a reality, including so called space....etc.

 

[fyl2u]

It proves everything to those who wish to see the logic in it against illogical schooling of water curving around a big globe.

Water level is a fact. Water curving whilst staying level is not a fact.

You mean it proves everything to those who can't see the failure in their own logic.

You said you believed in real science not psuedoscience. And here you are performing pseudoscience.

The point of an experiment is to determine whether or not a hypothesis is correct.

If the experiment would give the same result regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is correct then it doesn't prove anything.

You're big on comparing science with religion. And here you are clinging to your own religious fake science dogma, lying to yourself and to everyone else that your experiment proves anything.

Don't be that guy. Don't be a liar.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

Distance and angle, like I said.

So what is the distance of the sun that makes those angles on a flat stationary surface? What trajectory makes those angles?

 

[kingmonkey]

This is amazing. How have I missed this?

 

[fyl2u]

This isn't about replacing it, it's about knowing what it isn't. It's also knowing how everything's been shoehorned over time to fit the narrative when that narrative's been shown up to be lacking.

You're lying again. You're replacing the globe model of our argument with a nonsensical pseudo-globe model of your own devising and then you're arguing against the latter, not against our model.

We all agree with you that your nonsensical pseudo-globe model that you've invented wouldn't work.

Now try arguing against our actual globe model instead.

No I haven't. That's the story you believe as your reality.

Don't tell us what we believe. It's for us to tell you what we believe. If you think that the model that we present to you is wrong then you need to provide evidence of that, the same way that we're providing evidence that our model works and yours doesn't.

I do accept that is the standard model schooled into people.
And this is why I'm arguing it, because it's wrong on so many counts just by simple logic and observation.

You're not arguing against the model at all, you're arguing against some twisted bizarro nonsensical straw-man version of the standard model that literally nobody believes in.

Nothing because it can't happen for two reasons. Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon and gravity is just a complete and utter loads of nonsense to make it appear a reality, including so called space....etc.

That's the most childish, closedminded and unscientific answer you've given yet on this thread.

If you want to disprove the accepted model, first you need to understand the accepted model, and then you need to devise an experiment that would give a different answer if the accepted model is wrong to the answer it would give it the accepted model was right.

Your "spirit level on a raft on a lake" would give exactly the same result regardless of whether our accepted model was correct or your lemon-squeezer cell-world was correct, and therefore it is a flawed experiment. Trying to argue otherwise is to operate in bad faith; the realm of pseudoscience, not proper science.

 

[DaveH]

This isn't about replacing it, it's about knowing what it isn't. It's also knowing how everything's been shoehorned over time to fit the narrative when that narrative's been shown up to be lacking.

No I haven't. That's the story you believe as your reality.

I do accept that is the standard model schooled into people.
And this is why I'm arguing it, because it's wrong on so many counts just by simple logic and observation.

Nothing because it can't happen for two reasons. Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon and gravity is just a complete and utter loads of nonsense to make it appear a reality, including so called space....etc.

And that is the problem with your spirit level experiment. You either accept that the world might be a globe where gravity holds water to the surface in a ball, and then by your own calculation method you prove your own experiment is pointless.

Or you rant away saying spinning globe is impossible. You call it simple logic and observation, but your observations and logic are fundamentally flawed.

Meanwhile you talk about shoehorning and your dome model fails completely and you have to shoehorn magic bending light into everything to make any observation work.

It is a fascinating but worrying mindset.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You mean it proves everything to those who can't see the failure in their own logic.

You said you believed in real science not psuedoscience. And here you are performing pseudoscience.

Absolutely not.

The point of an experiment is to determine whether or not a hypothesis is correct.

Yep and if it is correct and can be proven, it's accepted as a scientific fact.

If the experiment would give the same result regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is correct then it doesn't prove anything.

It proves there's more answers to the hypothesis.

You're big on comparing science with religion.

No. I don't compare science to religion. I compare what we're told is science without showing proof. That's what I compare.

And here you are clinging to your own religious fake science dogma, lying to yourself and to everyone else that your experiment proves anything.

Mine isn't science dogma. I clearly ensure people know I don't offer any of my stuff as fact unless I can prove it as factual.
This is not the case with people offering up the global model.

Don't be that guy. Don't be a liar.

We're all liars, it just depends on how being a liar is construed by those who don't believe they do tell lies or believe their lies are acceptable as being anything but.

So what is the distance of the sun that makes those angles on a flat stationary surface? What trajectory makes those angles?

I don't know the distance.
I just know it's not 93 million miles or millions of miles into so called space.

Nukehasslefan said:
This isn't about replacing it, it's about knowing what it isn't. It's also knowing how everything's been shoehorned over time to fit the narrative when that narrative's been shown up to be lacking.

fyl2u said:
You're lying again. You're replacing the globe model of our argument with a nonsensical pseudo-globe model of your own devising and then you're arguing against the latter, not against our model.

We all agree with you that your nonsensical pseudo-globe model that you've invented wouldn't work.

Now try arguing against our actual globe model instead.
Nukehasslefan said:
I am.

Nukehasslefan said:
No I haven't. That's the story you believe as your reality.

fyl2u said:
Don't tell us what we believe. It's for us to tell you what we believe. If you think that the model that we present to you is wrong then you need to provide evidence of that, the same way that we're providing evidence that our model works and yours doesn't.

Nukehasslefan said:
Do you believe in a spinning globe in a space vacuum and all that goes with that model?
If so then I don't need to tell you what you believe.

Nukehasslefan said:
I do accept that is the standard model schooled into people.
And this is why I'm arguing it, because it's wrong on so many counts just by simple logic and observation.

fyl2u said:
You're not arguing against the model at all, you're arguing against some twisted bizarro nonsensical straw-man version of the standard model that literally nobody believes in.

Nukehasslefan said:
Nope.
I can only go on what's spewed out about a spinning globe and what not, in books, papers, media, word of mouth, all schools and colleges that focus on this as part of their teachings.....etc.

Nukehasslefan said:
Nothing because it can't happen for two reasons. Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk upon and gravity is just a complete and utter loads of nonsense to make it appear a reality, including so called space....etc.

fyl2u said:
That's the most childish, closedminded and unscientific answer you've given yet on this thread.

If you want to disprove the accepted model, first you need to understand the accepted model, and then you need to devise an experiment that would give a different answer if the accepted model is wrong to the answer it would give it the accepted model was right.

Nukehasslefan said:
I've seen enough of the stuff to know it's nonsense by simply using logic and observation and small experiments.


fyl2u said:
Your "spirit level on a raft on a lake" would give exactly the same result regardless of whether our accepted model was correct or your lemon-squeezer cell-world was correct, and therefore it is a flawed experiment. Trying to argue otherwise is to operate in bad faith; the realm of pseudoscience, not proper science.

Nukehasslefan said: Of course it's going to be flawed to people like yourself. I wouldn't expect any other answer to be fair.

 

[jayjaysafc]

I don't know the distance.
I just know it's not 93 million miles or millions of miles into so called space.

How do you know it's not? Explain please. Give me something slightly concrete to go off

I can usually think laterally and I do ponder people's counter arguments a lot and often I think they have a point, but with you I get nothing

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And that is the problem with your spirit level experiment. You either accept that the world might be a globe where gravity holds water to the surface in a ball, and then by your own calculation method you prove your own experiment is pointless.

I don't accept there's a god. I can argue many reasons as to why I don;t think there's a god as we're told but I can't directly prove it. Why? Because I can't disprove a person who has faith in that god and religion and the very same goes for that person trying to prove it does exist.

This is why your spinning globe model works. Because it's basically based on the very same type of concept of supposed evidence but no proof..

Or you rant away saying spinning globe is impossible.

It is impossible in terms of what we supposedly live on.

You call it simple logic and observation, but your observations and logic are fundamentally flawed.

In your mind, yes. To me, absolutely not.

Meanwhile you talk about shoehorning and your dome model fails completely and you have to shoehorn magic bending light into everything to make any observation work.

It doesn't matter what I put forward. It's not passed off as fact. I simply ask people to decide what they think as possibilities.
You're coaxed into putting our a spinning globe in a space vacuum as factual because that's what you were schooled into and accept that, which is fair enough but it does not give you any credence for proof.
You cannot offer any other than what you think is a proof and trying to push that onto me as if you're showing facts.
You're not..

It is a fascinating but worrying mindset.

Don't worry about my mindset.
You're an intelligent person, use it to question your own stuff. You never know, you may surprise yourself. Or stick to the narrative. It's obviously your choice.

How do you know it's not? Explain please. Give me something slightly concrete to go off

I can usually think laterally and I do ponder people's counter arguments a lot and often I think they have a point, but with you I get nothing

I can't give you anything concrete for a sun distance. It comes down to your own inquisitive mindset to decide if something is worth questioning or not.

 

[Nobby]

doesn't matter what I put forward. It's not passed off as fact.

That not true. You put out as fact the earth is not a globe.

What you then do is fail to provide any proof of that "fact"

 

[ned_werby]

No globe we supposedly walk/sail upon. IMO.

That's absolutely not a fact.
I've been presented with pictures and video of what I'm told is a spinning globe. I've never been presented with facts that it supposedly is.
If I had to take this as a truth then I'd have to accept star wars, star trek, Armageddon, independence day, moonraker.....you get the gist...are real facts...right?
But they're just fiction and we're told that, right? But when it suits we're told other stuff is fact and our reliance is on those stories to be accepted as what's told.
You don;t know there's any facts involved, you just accept it and argue it based on that.
That's fine but it offers you no credence for factual knowing.


Not ignore it. I'd say go over it all and not accept it.

If you mean I won't accept what you say as being a truth, then you're correct.
If you do offer a truth then I'll be sure to agree.

It can depending on what you're viewing. Like I said.

seek help, by any standard you're mentally impaired.

 

[fyl2u]

Absolutely not.

QED. You can't even see the failure in your logic of your argument about being able to see the failure in your logic, let alone the failure of your logic in your experiments.

Yep and if it is correct and can be proven, it's accepted as a scientific fact.

Indeed, like the scientific facts that we live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum upon which gravity keeps water attached to the ball shape.

It proves there's more answers to the hypothesis.

LOGIC FAIL

No, it shows that your experiment neither proves nor disproves your hypothesis.

No. I don't compare science to religion. I compare what we're told is science without showing proof. That's what I compare.

You're lying again.

You have literally used that exact comparison dozens of times on this thread.

Mine isn't science dogma. I clearly ensure people know I don't offer any of my stuff as fact unless I can prove it as factual.
This is not the case with people offering up the global model.

Apparently you can't even read. I didn't say yours was "science dogma", I said it was "FAKE science dogma".

And you're lying again. You have made claims repeatedly throughout this thread that you say are factual.

"we don't live on a globe"
"gravity doesn't exist"
"water doesn't stick to a curve on a globe model"
"the space vacuum doesn't exist"
"the stars aren't stars"
"the Earth doesn't orbit the sun"
"you're all just repeating what you're taught"
"nobody has given me proof of the globe model"

None of those are facts.

A few of them are outright lies.

We're all liars,

Not like you. You lie about everything.

it just depends on how being a liar is construed by those who don't believe they do tell lies or believe their lies are acceptable as being anything but.

Can anyone translate this gibberish? It's even more illiterately constructed than usual. I think he might have typed it with his face.

I just know it's not 93 million miles or millions of miles into so called space.

Another statement that you're claiming as being a fact.

Thus proving once again that you're a liar.

fyl2u said:
You're lying again. You're replacing the globe model of our argument with a nonsensical pseudo-globe model of your own devising and then you're arguing against the latter, not against our model.

We all agree with you that your nonsensical pseudo-globe model that you've invented wouldn't work.

Now try arguing against our actual globe model instead.
Nukehasslefan said:
I am.

No, you're not. You're lying again.

fyl2u said:
Don't tell us what we believe. It's for us to tell you what we believe. If you think that the model that we present to you is wrong then you need to provide evidence of that, the same way that we're providing evidence that our model works and yours doesn't.

Nukehasslefan said:
Do you believe in a spinning globe in a space vacuum and all that goes with that model?
If so then I don't need to tell you what you believe.

I don't believe in the bizarro version of it that you're claiming we all believe in.

fyl2u said:
You're not arguing against the model at all, you're arguing against some twisted bizarro nonsensical straw-man version of the standard model that literally nobody believes in.

Nukehasslefan said:
Nope.
I can only go on what's spewed out about a spinning globe and what not, in books, papers, media, word of mouth, all schools and colleges that focus on this as part of their teachings.....etc.

No, you're not. If you genuinely think you are, then you've never understood a single thing anyone's ever tried to teach you.

fyl2u said:
That's the most childish, closedminded and unscientific answer you've given yet on this thread.

If you want to disprove the accepted model, first you need to understand the accepted model, and then you need to devise an experiment that would give a different answer if the accepted model is wrong to the answer it would give it the accepted model was right.

Nukehasslefan said:
I've seen enough of the stuff to know it's nonsense by simply using logic and observation and small experiments.

More lies.

You don't understand what you've tried to disprove, and if indeed you've ever done a single experiment like the ones you've described on this thread (which I don't believe for a second you have) then you haven't proven anything other than the facts that you don't understand how science works, how experiments are supposed to work, or anything at all about the thing you're supposedly trying to disprove.

fyl2u said:
Your "spirit level on a raft on a lake" would give exactly the same result regardless of whether our accepted model was correct or your lemon-squeezer cell-world was correct, and therefore it is a flawed experiment. Trying to argue otherwise is to operate in bad faith; the realm of pseudoscience, not proper science.

Nukehasslefan said: Of course it's going to be flawed to people like yourself. I wouldn't expect any other answer to be fair.

If you truly believe that, then by all means explain to us all why it isn't flawed.

Tell us exactly how your "spirit level on a raft on a lake" would give different results on a flat lake on a cell in your model to a curved lake on a globe in our model.

I'm all ears.

As far as I can tell, in both situations it would give the same result: the bubble would stay in the middle.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

I don't know the distance.
I just know it's not 93 million miles or millions of miles into so called space.

If you have two sticks and their shadows come from one light source then surely you can triangulate the three points. basic trigonometry, since the ground is flat.

seek help, by any standard you're mentally impaired.

Or an art project. The thread will be printed out and exhibited at Tate Modern.

 

[Nobby]

If you have two sticks and their shadows come from one light source then surely you can triangulate the three points. basic trigonometry, since the ground is flat.

He doesn't do angles very well, needs a protractor and that's just all kinds of wrong.

As long as remember not all right angles are equal you will be ok

 

[Harry Angstrom]

He doesn't do angles very well, needs a protractor and that's just all kinds of wrong.

As long as remember not all right angles are equal you will be ok

His model cannot explain a stick in the ground. He never got past it the first time I asked.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That not true. You put out as fact the earth is not a globe.

What you then do is fail to provide any proof of that "fact"

I'm talking about my own alternate Earth theory.
Also the globe is killed stone dead with water level. No matter what's argued. This alone wipes it out.

If you have two sticks and their shadows come from one light source then surely you can triangulate the three points.

Explain how you would do this?

basic trigonometry, since the ground is flat.

Ok basic trig. Let's see how you do it to show the sun distance.

 

[Nobby]

I'm talking about my own alternate Earth theory.
Also the globe is killed stone dead with water level. No matter what's argued. This alone wipes it out.

You keep saying that but never offer any measurable repeatable proof


You haven't got the hang of right angles yet man, trig is a step too far at the minute