• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


legend7 said:
OK but the atlantic goes from the top to the bottom unhindered yes?
Click to expand...
I'll take it you mean the shore of the inner gradient to the shore of the outer gradient. Then yes it's unhindered in terms of flattish and level-ish from taking into account obvious wave movement from one shore to the other amid landmass protruding from it...etc.
legend7 said:
The deepest ocean is 6 miles deep so there can only be a difference in depth following the gradient of a maximum 6 miles yes?
Click to expand...

Let's use the 6 miles depth and go with what's said about ocean depths.
legend7 said:
6 miles over the length of the Atlantic isn't a gradient at all its flat.
Click to expand...

Ok, so let's deal with this.
If I say a gradient that's gradual and say to you to walk a distance and tell me if you think you've walked up a mountain, you'll tell me that you walked and felt like it was flat or close to it. Only the change in air pressure would likely tell you different.
So I then draw a small diagram of what you trekked so you could see what you actually walked up and you see a mound. I'll call it a mound on the drawing.
Something like on that map I gave out as an idea of it. the O-F map.

legend7 said:
As I say to scale drawn as a line it wouldn't vary by more than 0.2mm over the 300mm line.
Click to expand...
If you were drawing a house on a piece of paper to scale I could understand how you can do it.
Trying to put an entire world to scale is impossible in terms of trying to give a picture that does not skew a person's vision of the explanation.
This is a classic case of it.

legend7 said:
Certainly no orange squeezer type undulations.
Click to expand...
That depends on how you want to view it.
If I asked you to draw a sketch of your globe to show how I would be walking on it, you are going to draw it flat but that doesn't show me what you mean.

This is the same thing.

This is why I used two diagrams of Earth shape to illustrate what I was getting across.

Naturally if you take an orange squeezer as said then I can't help you.
Like I said earlier, I could've simply put up an orange squeezer and said " something like this."

That would've sent people into raptures and frenzies, worse than some go into on here.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
I'll take it you mean the shore of the inner gradient to the shore of the outer gradient. Then yes it's unhindered in terms of flattish and level-ish from taking into account obvious wave movement from one shore to the other amid landmass protruding from it...etc.


Let's use the 6 miles depth and go with what's said about ocean depths.


Ok, so let's deal with this.
If I say a gradient that's gradual and say to you to walk a distance and tell me if you think you've walked up a mountain, you'll tell me that you walked and felt like it was flat or close to it. Only the change in air pressure would likely tell you different.
So I then draw a small diagram of what you trekked so you could see what you actually walked up and you see a mound. I'll call it a mound on the drawing.
Something like on that map I gave out as an idea of it. the O-F map.


If you were drawing a house on a piece of paper to scale I could understand how you can do it.
Trying to put an entire world to scale is impossible in terms of trying to give a picture that does not skew a person's vision of the explanation.
This is a classic case of it.


That depends on how you want to view it.
If I asked you to draw a sketch of your globe to show how I would be walking on it, you are going to draw it flat but that doesn't show me what you mean.

This is the same thing.

This is why I used two diagrams of Earth shape to illustrate what I was getting across.

Naturally if you take an orange squeezer as said then I can't help you.
Like I said earlier, I could've simply put up an orange squeezer and said " something like this."

That would've sent people into raptures and frenzies, worse than some go into on here.
Click to expand...
Yes but on my 10 mile walk say, drawn as a section you would see a noticeable difference in level to scale even if gradual.
On yours it would just look completely flat as the change in level in proportion to distance across is nothing, it's about 0.05% change in level, a kitchen worktop will be out more than that.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Scale works at any size, that's the whole point and meaning of it.
Click to expand...
Exactly 🙄🙄🤯🤯
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I'll take it you mean the shore of the inner gradient to the shore of the outer gradient. Then yes it's unhindered in terms of flattish and level-ish from taking into account obvious wave movement from one shore to the other amid landmass protruding from it...etc.


Let's use the 6 miles depth and go with what's said about ocean depths.


Ok, so let's deal with this.
If I say a gradient that's gradual and say to you to walk a distance and tell me if you think you've walked up a mountain, you'll tell me that you walked and felt like it was flat or close to it. Only the change in air pressure would likely tell you different.
So I then draw a small diagram of what you trekked so you could see what you actually walked up and you see a mound. I'll call it a mound on the drawing.
Something like on that map I gave out as an idea of it. the O-F map.


If you were drawing a house on a piece of paper to scale I could understand how you can do it.
Trying to put an entire world to scale is impossible in terms of trying to give a picture that does not skew a person's vision of the explanation.
This is a classic case of it.


That depends on how you want to view it.
If I asked you to draw a sketch of your globe to show how I would be walking on it, you are going to draw it flat but that doesn't show me what you mean.

This is the same thing.

This is why I used two diagrams of Earth shape to illustrate what I was getting across.

Naturally if you take an orange squeezer as said then I can't help you.
Like I said earlier, I could've simply put up an orange squeezer and said " something like this."

That would've sent people into raptures and frenzies, worse than some go into on here.
Click to expand...
f***ing hell. the scale police.
 
legend7 said:
Yes but on my 10 mile walk say, drawn as a section you would see a noticeable difference in level to scale even if gradual.
On yours it would just look completely flat as the change in level in proportion to distance across is nothing, it's about 0.05% change in level, a kitchen worktop will be out more than that.

Exactly 🙄🙄🤯🤯
Click to expand...
But I'm telling you it's not level.
So if I show you it completely flat and then tell you it's really a gradual gradient that rises many miles high to the centre and also rises up into a dome to the outer, you're going to tell me it looks flat.

You'll just have to keep whatever you believe it to be and I'll do the same for my side.
 
payne said:
I've said that like. He's so brainwashed off yotube they should probably be forced to pay for his mental health treatment
Click to expand...
I think that is the problem. The earth is a flat disc and air pressure forces water down to be level across the whole disc. Fine, conspiracy theory one. But then theory two is it is a lemon squeezer and the water follows the contours of this giant space fruit squisher. He seems to be badly trying to mash the two together and can’t explain it because both contradict each other.

No matter how gradual the gradient, if water is level then the Arctic coast needs to be at the same height as the North African coast. Works on a flat earth, works on a globe earth, fails on a lemon squeezer. Or you go the other way and say water curves to the shape of the lemon squeezer, but then he blows his own single “proof” of the earth not being a globe out of the (bath) water.

It is how he has failed in the last 60 pages to actually explain the shape of his fantasy world because it is a mess of contradictions. A simple cross section or 3d diagram showing where real countries fit in and how the earth is shaped would answer it, but you can’t draw what will not work.

Following one conspiracy theory is one thing. Mashing two together badly is another altogether.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Scale works at any size, that's the whole point and meaning of it.
Click to expand...
Statement of the day!
 
Nukehasslefan said:
But I'm telling you it's not level.
So if I show you it completely flat and then tell you it's really a gradual gradient that rises many miles high to the centre and also rises up into a dome to the outer, you're going to tell me it looks flat.

You'll just have to keep whatever you believe it to be and I'll do the same for my side.
Click to expand...
HE'S TELLING YOU!
 
DaveH said:
I think that is the problem. The earth is a flat disc and air pressure forces water down to be level across the whole disc. Fine, conspiracy theory one. But then theory two is it is a lemon squeezer and the water follows the contours of this giant space fruit squisher. He seems to be badly trying to mash the two together and can’t explain it because both contradict each other.
Click to expand...
It's easily explained from my side. How you interpret it is your issue.
DaveH said:
No matter how gradual the gradient, if water is level then the Arctic coast needs to be at the same height as the North African coast. Works on a flat earth, works on a globe earth, fails on a lemon squeezer. Or you go the other way and say water curves to the shape of the lemon squeezer, but then he blows his own single “proof” of the earth not being a globe out of the (bath) water.
Click to expand...
Works on a globe? How?
DaveH said:
It is how he has failed in the last 60 pages to actually explain the shape of his fantasy world because it is a mess of contradictions.
Click to expand...
None at all. It's a mass of people not understanding my side but adding in what they think from their side. Including you.
DaveH said:
A simple cross section or 3d diagram showing where real countries fit in and how the earth is shaped would answer it, but you can’t draw what will not work.

Following one conspiracy theory is one thing. Mashing two together badly is another altogether.

Statement of the day!
Click to expand...
For someone (you) that believes oceans stay on a spinning globe I feel I'm absolutely fine with what I go with.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
But I'm telling you it's not level.
So if I show you it completely flat and then tell you it's really a gradual gradient that rises many miles high to the centre and also rises up into a dome to the outer, you're going to tell me it looks flat.

You'll just have to keep whatever you believe it to be and I'll do the same for my side.
Click to expand...
So you can't explain it or draw it that's fine.
It doesn't work with the seas and you know it.
 
legend7 said:
So you can't explain it or draw it that's fine.
It doesn't work with the seas and you know it.
Click to expand...
It does work.
It doesn't work for you because your mind is solely on the diagram as some super high mountain and think the water level comes to the top of it and so it also has to come up the outer part of the dome which mean you are thinking the water in the trough or moat is somehow thousands of miles deep.
I honestly can't help you on that.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It does work.
It doesn't work for you because your mind is solely on the diagram as some super high mountain and think the water level comes to the top of it and so it also has to come up the outer part of the dome which mean you are thinking the water in the trough or moat is somehow thousands of miles deep.
I honestly can't help you on that.
Click to expand...
Nope you're completely wrong once again.
A section sketch would show us but you can't do one because.....
It doesn't work.
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
It's a shame you're not going to watch this, it has some really good stuff about scale

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
Pointless watching something that I don't believe in in terms of trying to show scale.
legend7 said:
Nope you're completely wrong once again.
A section sketch would show us but you can't do one because.....
It doesn't work.
Click to expand...
How about you do one and show me what you think it would be like.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Pointless watching something that I don't believe in in terms of trying to show scale.

How about you do one and show me what you think it would be like.
Click to expand...
You're the one trying to explain your world.
I drew a section of land masses rising up which you agreed with but then backtracked once we mentioned sea depths in the lower bowl.
How on earth can I draw a section of what you're saying, as I say its impossible.
But you could try.......
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I'm the one that's being asked to explain it and when I do I'm told it's wrong.
So show me or just forget about it.
Click to expand...
No you were going to draw a section to explain it but you haven't.
I showed you mine? You said you agreed with it initially, that's the only way it can work with a sloped land mass and continents rising up through the water, so where is your section to correct mine?
Feel free to print and draw over mine to amend?
Yeah the easy get out "if you can't draw what I'm thinking then we best leave it there" 🙄🙄😂😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top