Put a flat earthier into space

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Never mind how thick is the line I still want to know how to use a spirit level to draw a line.

You use it to scrape the scum off the bath

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'm not twisting anything, you say you offer loads of proof yet no proofs.

I'll make this clear.
I offer lots of proof of Earth not being a spinning globe.
It is rejected by people like yourself which naturally I would expect nothing else.
Anyone who wishes to question the global narrative can do so and decide for themselves if they see proof's against a spinning globe.

It doesn't matter one iota to me if nobody bothers. I'm merely putting my side across regardless of whether people go into raptures over it.

So you now admit the sun COULD be 93 million miles away then

No.

, as you have literally no idea,

I have no idea of the distance of the reflective sun off the dome, no.

pleased we got that one sorted too.

We haven't.

Just need the old sketcheroony,

You don't need anything. None of it will be worth anything to you.

what a weekend this could turn out to be

Aye.

 

[Nobby]

You use it to scrape the scum off the bath

There has to be a way to draw a line with a spirit level else his experiment has already failed.
He can't expect us to use a pen or pencil as they were never mentioned in the original discussion (just like the legendary protractor) so they can't be introduced at a later stage just to fill the gaps in his narrative

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Nice bit of deflection there. You describe your bathtub experiment with a bit more detail than before, are asked what would be expected in your bath on the globe of the standard model and answer saying “no oceans”.

That's not what I was asked.
I was asked what I should see on a globe. I said I should see no oceans.

I think it would be reasonable to say that on any shaped earth, nobody would find an ocean in their bath.

You do try, I'll give you that.

So if we lived on a globe of the standard model and you did the experiment you said above, drawing a line around your bath, what would you see?

Nothing. It wouldn't be happening.

I predict you will not answer the above question.

I can only answer it how I would see the issue.

Put it this way, there are thicker things about.

Aye.

Never mind how thick is the line I still want to know how to use a spirit level to draw a line. I know how to use to find a level but not to draw with

Try a pencil or a washable ink marker or even a crayon if you want to go really thick. I'll lend you some of mine.

 

[fyl2u]

Two different arguments.

The proof of no globe is plenty for those who want to use their own logic against the set narratives.
As for my own Earth musing, I don't offer any facts so offer no proof.

Trying to twist it will not get you any further forward with me.

You're not using logic against set narratives, you're using denial against overwhelming proof.

If you were using logic you'd see how much utter nonsense you're spouting.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

I said in your case, as in your curved Earth.


Ok, so carry on.



And where do they cross?

It's basic on paper, yes.
It's basic at a realistic end point, yes.

Tell me how it's crossed to get to the sun distance. It's never been answered.

It still hasn't been answered, secondary school maths or other.
Can you answer it?

Two stick 1000 km apart. Both have shadows that intersect.
Where do they intersect?
How are they measured to get a sun distance?

I was attempting to show you how you could measure where your sun was in relation to earth.

Whether you believe me depends on whether you believe the following:

1. The earth being flat
2. Light travels in a straight line
3. You know the distance between the sticks
4. You know the angles that the shadows make
5. You believe mathematics has come up with a way of measuring scalene triangles from two angles and one length.

If any of those you disagree with then your interpretation is still plausible in your mind.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You're not using logic against set narratives, you're using denial against overwhelming proof.

I absolutely disagree.

If you were using logic you'd see how much utter nonsense you're spouting.

If you think oceans doing what they do on a spinning global Earth is logical then that's your logic.....not mine.

 

[fyl2u]

I'll make this clear.
I offer lots of proof of Earth not being a spinning globe.

No you don't, you offer flawed pseudo-explanations that fall apart as soon as they're analysed.

It is rejected by people like yourself which naturally I would expect nothing else.

Of course they're rejected, they're utter bollocks.

Anyone who wishes to question the global narrative can do so and decide for themselves if they see proof's against a spinning globe.

We're all questioning the global narrative, testing our hypotheses, and being shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's a globe.

It doesn't matter one iota to me if nobody bothers. I'm merely putting my side across regardless of whether people go into raptures over it.

The problem is that "your side" is utter drivel.

I absolutely disagree.

If you think oceans doing what they do on a spinning global Earth is logical then that's your logic.....not mine.

It is absolutely logical.

Denying it is utterly illogical.

Continuing to lie about nobody giving you any proof is illogical because everyone here can see through your lies.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I was attempting to show you how you could measure where your sun was in relation to earth.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how it all works.
Here's all I need.
For you to tell me what you're seeing with your sticks at 1000 km.
Then how you make a triangle from them to get the distance to the sun.

I've had nothing.

Whether you believe me depends on whether you believe the following:

1. The earth being flat

Water is flat, unhindered.

2. Light travels in a straight line

We can go with this for the sake of argument.

3. You know the distance between the sticks

Ok we can go with the 1000 km.

4. You know the angles that the shadows make

Can you elaborate on the angles the sticks make? What is it in reference to. North?

5. You believe mathematics has come up with a way of measuring scalene triangles from two angles and one length.

I just want to know how the sun distance is measured by the use of what you're mentioning.

If any of those you disagree with then your interpretation is still plausible in your mind.

You must be logged on to see external links

Step by step take me through the start to finish with the sun distance...etc.
Don;t offer me web calculators and links to maths. Just explain it nice and simple, if you don't mind.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I'll make this clear.
I offer lots of proof of Earth not being a spinning globe.
It is rejected by people like yourself which naturally I would expect nothing else.
Anyone who wishes to question the global narrative can do so and decide for themselves if they see proof's against a spinning globe.

It doesn't matter one iota to me if nobody bothers. I'm merely putting my side across regardless of whether people go into raptures over it.

I'll make this clear too.
You offer zero proof of the Earth not being a spinning globe, you only prove your lack of understanding of several subjects.
It is rejected by people who do understand some of these subjects because they understand these subjects, not just because they are schooled or brainwashed.
Anyone who wishes to question anything can do so for themselves, but refusing to even think about proofs offered and then simply denying their existence is not questioning. You are not questioning the globe model, you are refusing to accept it because you don't understand it. You then refuse to deal with anything that threatens to disprove your alternative.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Continuing to lie about nobody giving you any proof is illogical because everyone here can see through your lies.

I don't believe there is any lie. I do not see any proof. I do see plenty of explanations for what should be this and that but no real life proof.

 

[payne]

I'll make this clear too.
You offer zero proof of the Earth not being a spinning globe, you only prove your lack of understanding of several subjects.
It is rejected by people who do understand some of these subjects because they understand these subjects, not just because they are schooled or brainwashed.
Anyone who wishes to question anything can do so for themselves, but refusing to even think about proofs offered and then simply denying their existence is not questioning. You are not questioning the globe model, you are refusing to accept it because you don't understand it. You then refuse to deal with anything that threatens to disprove your alternative.

he's brainwashed with a god complex. there's no reasoning with a flat earth, climate and covid denier.

 

[fyl2u]

That's not what I was asked.
I was asked what I should see on a globe. I said I should see no oceans.

You were asked what you should see IN YOUR BATH EXPERIMENT IF THE WORLD WERE A GLOBE, so that you could determine whether your experiment were actually proving anything.

I've never known anyone so incomprehensibly thick in my entire life.

Nothing. It wouldn't be happening.

You really don't even understand how experiments work, do you?

You're trying to prove one way or the other whether the world is a globe or not, and so you need to come up with an experiment that will give you one result if the world isn't a globe and one if it is.

You have to understand what you're testing for.

The globe model suggests that the curve in the bath will be so tiny you could only measure it with highly specialised very accurate measuring devices, whereas the non-globe model suggests there'd be no curve at all.

Literally the only way to find out which is the truth and which isn't, would be to obtain one of those highly specialised very accurate measuring devices so that you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't a globe.

Your "experiment" doesn't do that.

The options that your so-called logic has come up with are:

The non-globe model says it'll be flat to the naked eye, whereas the globe model says something else that isn't important because that wouldn't happen because it isn't a globe so I'm not going to bother even trying to imagine what that should be.

Oh look, it looks flat to the naked eye. Point proven, YAY!

Your logic is beyond idiocy.

I don't believe there is any lie. I do not see any proof. I do see plenty of explanations for what should be this and that but no real life proof.

Liar.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'll make this clear too.
You offer zero proof of the Earth not being a spinning globe, you only prove your lack of understanding of several subjects.

In your opinion, which is fine.

It is rejected by people who do understand some of these subjects because they understand these subjects, not just because they are schooled or brainwashed.

In your opinion, which is also fine.

Anyone who wishes to question anything can do so for themselves, but refusing to even think about proofs offered and then simply denying their existence is not questioning.

I can levy that at those who do not question the global model but it's each to their own and I accept everyone has an opinion and a stance.

You are not questioning the globe model

I certainly am.

, you are refusing to accept it because you don't understand it.

I understand what's said about it but I agree I don't understand any reality of it because it's utter nonsense, in my honest opinion.

You then refuse to deal with anything that threatens to disprove your alternative.

I don't refuse. I give out answers as best I can without having the proof's of the alternative. It's not given out as factual so shouldn't be frenzied over.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I don't refuse. I give out answers as best I can without having the proof's of the alternative. It's not given out as factual so shouldn't be frenzied over.

So explain how there are two different and demonstrably real hemispheres of stars visible in such a way as to be absolutely impossible on anything other than a rotating globe.

'frenzied over'

 

[fyl2u]

So explain how there are two different and demonstrably real hemispheres of stars visible in such a way as to be absolutely impossible on anything other than a rotating globe.

'frenzied over'

He covered this on about page 50.

"Reflections".

Even though none of the constellations are repeated, reversed or otherwise, anywhere from one hemisphere to the other.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how it all works.
Here's all I need.
For you to tell me what you're seeing with your sticks at 1000 km.
Then how you make a triangle from them to get the distance to the sun.

I've had nothing.

Water is flat, unhindered.

We can go with this for the sake of argument.

Ok we can go with the 1000 km.

Can you elaborate on the angles the sticks make? What is it in reference to. North?

I just want to know how the sun distance is measured by the use of what you're mentioning.

Step by step take me through the start to finish with the sun distance...etc.
Don;t offer me web calculators and links to maths. Just explain it nice and simple, if you don't mind.

So we can have the sticks in lakes that are more than 1000km long and that will suffice for the flat surface.
good
good
The sticks have shadows when not obscured by clouds. Those shadows have an angle. You are happy that sticks in the sun have shadows?
The angle can be measured from the the length of the stick against the length of the angle.
Then we have a scalene triangle with three points. the source of light, stick one and stick two.
We know two angles and one length. From that we can deduce the measurements of all three sides of the triangle.
If you believe maths hasn't come up with a way of measuring a scalene triangle or cannot fathom the maths of that then you can believe what you want.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You were asked what you should see IN YOUR BATH EXPERIMENT IF THE WORLD WERE A GLOBE, so that you could determine whether your experiment were actually proving anything.

I've never known anyone so incomprehensibly thick in my entire life.

I answered it. Did you not see the answer?

You really don't even understand how experiments work, do you?

Are you asking me or telling me?

You're trying to prove one way or the other whether the world is a globe or not, and so you need to come up with an experiment that will give you one result if the world isn't a globe and one if it is.

I have quite a few.

You have to understand what you're testing for.

Aye.

The globe model suggests that the curve in the bath will be so tiny you could only measure it with highly specialised very accurate measuring devices, whereas the non-globe model suggests there'd be no curve at all.

Yeah, so I've been told.

Literally the only way to find out which is the truth and which isn't, would be to obtain one of those highly specialised very accurate measuring devices so that you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't a globe.

Or open your eyes and see it all and then simply use logic to see the utter nonsense of a spinning globe. But, that's just me, the nutter.

Your "experiment" doesn't do that.

Mine does and so do others.
Nothing any of you can do will show a spinning globe.

The options that your so-called logic has come up with are:

The non-globe model says it'll be flat to the naked eye, whereas the globe model says something else that isn't important because that wouldn't happen because it isn't a globe so I'm not going to bother even trying to imagine what that should be.

Oh look, it looks flat to the naked eye. Point proven, YAY!

Your logic is beyond idiocy.


Liar.

The silly thing is, it's argued you can't see the curve until something shows a curve, like a fish eye lens and such and then it's a curve in view.
The reality is, if you look out at sea you're not seeing any curvature because there is none. There is none because we do not live on a spinning global Earth.

So explain how there are two different and demonstrably real hemispheres of stars visible in such a way as to be absolutely impossible on anything other than a rotating globe.

'frenzied over'

There aren't two different hemispheres of stars.
There is one dome with points of light over and around it.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Logon or register to see this image

You have any problem with this?

No.

Yes there are two different hemispheres of stars. Even if you want to call them points of light on the dome, there are still two hemispheres of them.

 

[Nobby]

Try a pencil or a washable ink marker or even a crayon if you want to go really thick. I'll lend you some of mine.

Let's get back to the spirit level how does that draw a line?

We can move onto markers once you have explained that