Put a flat earthier into space

[fyl2u]

I answered it. Did you not see the answer?

I saw an answer a toddler might give if they hadn't listened to the question.

Are you asking me or telling me?

You tell me.

I have quite a few.

Then why haven't you shared any of them with us? So far every "experiment" you've shown us would either have the same result regardless of whether the world were a globe or not, or has been designed to be performed with equipment that isn't accurate enough to give a definitive answer.

Bathwater/spirit level experiment - FAIL - you would need more accurate equipment to see the curve
Lake/raft/spirit level experiment - FAIL - you would get exactly the same result regardless of which model were true

So where are all these definitive experiments you claim to have performed that actually prove the world isn't a globe?

Yeah, so I've been told.

And yet still you continue to lie about that experiment proving anything?

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.

No, using another of your failures in logic is not a valid alternative. LITERALLY THE ONLY WAY to use your bathtub/spirit level experiment to find out whether or not the curve predicted by the globe model exists, 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.

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

Mine does and so do others.

Explain how.

Nothing any of you can do will show a spinning globe.

We have, dozens of times. Stop lying.

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.

No it isn't, you're lying again.

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.

And now you're back to throwing your faeces at the computer monitor.

There aren't two different hemispheres of stars.

There are two hemispheres of stars: those you can see in the north, and those you can see in the south.

You can tell they're different hemispheres because of the patterns that we grown-ups call "constellations". None of the constellations that appear in the northern skies can be seen in the southern skies, not the right way round, and certainly not mirrored.

There is one dome with points of light over and around it.

Stop talking shite.

 

[DaveH]

I don't disagree with how the concept is pushed out in terms of constellations/points of light patterns.
I'm simply saying it's showing two hemispheres where I'm talking about one dome with what can be seen in each half of the dome depending on where you're standing.

Nothing. I would expect no bath nor water inside of it, for obvious reasons.

Above is not obscure, it should be easily understandable.

Nothing. It wouldn't be happening.

It's irrelevant.

You expect no bath and no water? That really isn't obvious. That sounds mental to me being honest.

So the whole object we call a bath could not exist on a globe and neither could water?

So say space exists and we are some disc floating through it but Mars is a globe. If we took a bath on earth and dropped it on to Mars it would suddenly disappear out of existence?

What other objects could not exist? Where do you stand on horses, buckets and pritt-stick?

I do think you need to elaborate further here.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What conventional theories of the world do you actually think resemble reality?

My favourite is Darwin's Theory. It is elegant simple, profound and beautiful.

In the early stages I agree with you. I still do to an extent....but, I say evolution and creationism but not as in what you would think I mean.
I don't mean a god, I mean the human being or a similar human like trait oe other potentially similar species that are superior to us and are the deviators of natural evolution.

We do naturally adapt to our surroundings. Many die in the process but many survive with the added ingredient.
In essence I agree with you.

Stop talking shite.

Ignore me.

 

[payne]

What conventional theories of the world do you actually think resemble reality?

My favourite is Darwin's Theory. It is elegant simple, profound and beautiful.

He doesn't believe in evolution and the world is only tens of thousands of years old. Darwin was probably an actor to him.

 

[fyl2u]

Ignore me.

I'll ignore you when you stop spreading your lies about the globe model being incorrect.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

In the early stages I agree with you. I still do to an extent....but, I say evolution and creationism but not as in what you would think I mean.
I don't mean a god, I mean the human being or a similar human like trait oe other potentially similar species that are superior to us and are the deviators of natural evolution.

We do naturally adapt to our surroundings. Many die in the process but many survive with the added ingredient.
In essence I agree with you.

So not really. That's fine. You have your own reality.

To me what Darwin came up with is the most beautiful explanation ever given by one human being. To take something that was so incomprehensible and explain it in simple terms most people can understand is just sublime.

I feel slightly sorry for people who don't get it but then I don't get other stuff that others will find amazing.

I'll ignore you when you stop spreading your lies about the globe model being incorrect.

Who is he harming? Not one other person in the world believes his interpretation.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You expect no bath and no water? That really isn't obvious. That sounds mental to me being honest.

It will because you think they are a reality that can last on a globe, so I'm certainly not surprised.

So the whole object we call a bath could not exist on a globe and neither could water?

Correct.

So say space exists and we are some disc floating through it but Mars is a globe.

I don't believe we are on a disc and I don't believe mars is a planet.

If we took a bath on earth and dropped it on to Mars it would suddenly disappear out of existence?

No. Mars as a planet does not exist.

What other objects could not exist?

Everything. Earth is not a spinning globe so nothing can exist on something that's not a reality.

Where do you stand on horses, buckets and pritt-stick?

Horses are animals and buckets can hold liquids and solids plus air and can be of various material make up. A pritt-stick is ideal for sticking bits and pieces of paper and stuff..
And no they won't work on what you think is mars, before you ask.

I do think you need to elaborate further here.

Not sure how I can other than the above.

 

[Nobby]

In the early stages I agree with you. I still do to an extent....but, I say evolution and creationism but not as in what you would think I mean.
I don't mean a god, I mean the human being or a similar human like trait oe other potentially similar species that are superior to us and are the deviators of natural evolution.

We do naturally adapt to our surroundings. Many die in the process but many survive with the added ingredient.
In essence I agree with you.

I can understand the individual words but I have no idea what they are saying collectively

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'll ignore you when you stop spreading your lies about the globe model being incorrect.

Ok no problem. Don't ignore me.

I can understand the individual words but I have no idea what they are saying collectively

No problem.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

I can understand the individual words but I have no idea what they are saying collectively

Lizards, I think.

 

[Nobby]

Lizards, I think.

As probable as anything else I suppose.

What ever it is he has found a very deep rabbit hole and got lost in there

 

[fyl2u]

Who is he harming? Not one other person in the world believes his interpretation.

If his bullshittery went unchallenged, we'd risk gullible people believing him.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

If his bullshittery went unchallenged, we'd risk gullible people believing him.

Nobody is that gullible

 

[ned_werby]

Nobody is that gullible

he is.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

he is.

I have quite liked the thread. Popped in and out but no one can convince him of anything. It is quite impressive

 

[legend7]

No.
I know what you're trying to do.
If I think there's a dome then I don't think I need to tell you it's over 93 million miles in height.

Seeing as you're trying to coax out a wild guess I'll give you a wild guess. If you then come back with "how do you know" then I'll have to overlook it. I'm just giving you fair warning.

Erm no I asked you roughly and even gave you 3 appx options, 100, 1000 and a million and you repeatedly said you had absolutely no idea, memory going as well as your marbles I think, jeez.

Yep.
From the centre of Earth the energy from within projects that energy towards the dome in waves.
If the dome was not there, those waves would be absorbed into the blackness we see in the sky at night.
However, the reason it reflects back to us is because of the ice dome. It acts like a perfect reflecting mirror back to the ground, of that energy.

The very same goes for all the points of light and anything else we see in that sky that is not man made.

So in this perfect reflecting mirror how come we can only see the "sun" "moon" "tiny stars" but we don't see reflections of anything else, like if there was a volcano or even just the sees and landmasses on a lovely clear day?

 

[DaveH]

It will because you think they are a reality that can last on a globe, so I'm certainly not surprised.

Correct.

I don't believe we are on a disc and I don't believe mars is a planet.

No. Mars as a planet does not exist.

Everything. Earth is not a spinning globe so nothing can exist on something that's not a reality.

Horses are animals and buckets can hold liquids and solids plus air and can be of various material make up. A pritt-stick is ideal for sticking bits and pieces of paper and stuff..
And no they won't work on what you think is mars, before you ask.

Not sure how I can other than the above.

That is your problem, it is what I said yesterday, that you change the model then claim the model doesn't work.

You can stick a small toy bath on a basket ball, why not a real bath on a globe? At what point in the scale does the concept of pressing two objects together fail?

Regardless of which, the standard reality model of a globe is that a bath can exist and be filled with water. In your "experiment" you assume a bath can not physically exist as an object and then you reject the whole idea. You never actually test the model of a bath on a globe and what it would look like if such things are possible. You made an assumption and dismissed your own experiment as void. The whole idea of a laser line water or anything is irrelevant if you have already decided that baths can't exist.

Your single proof for proving the world is not a globe is just a load of rubbish. It is not about mindset, not about schooling from our point of view etc, it is you pouring water in a bath saying flat, then deciding the world is not a globe and stopping there. If you were saying water would curve in a bath or something else, then ok, but to completely reject the concept of a bath, that takes this to a whole new level of insanity.

 

[payne]

Moon really big tonight. Must have put the magnifying glass on the projector.

---

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

If his bullshittery went unchallenged, we'd risk gullible people believing him.

Somewhere there's a conspiracy theory that's actually correct, but we will never know thanks to fuckwittery like this.

 

[Red]

I don't believe we are on a disc and I don't believe mars is a planet.

Just how thick is this disc?