Put a flat earthier into space

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Nukehasslefan said:
Time and dates are man made.

"Whereas everything in Cell-World isn't?
Apart from it's very existence of course."


Of course. Time and dates are man made no matter what.

I didn't say time and dates, I said "everything."
The cell, the dome, the crystal projector, the super-carbon arc, the pretendy gravity all of it made up by one man.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Wind patterns are far more complex phenomena and are influenced by many factors. However, the general direct of wind is to to the rotation of the earth. I’m sure you’re experienced wind in your life? And I’m also sure you’ve experienced a calm, still day.

Go outside and watch the sun traverse the sky. As it does in a predictable manner everyday of every year following the same trajectory based on the time of year and inclination of the earth.

Everything that has been put forward on this thread tied together in synchrony. Your musings are littered with inaccuracies and contradiction.

What you see in that sky and what you feel as wind on your face and what you feel as a pressure upon your body, is not because the Earth is spinning and nor is it because you walk upon a globe. So we can argue about inaccuracies all day long but proof needs to be offered to show inaccuracies. None has so far from the global spinning Earth mindset.

I don't know where to begin with this. Correct me if I'm wrong but you appear to have formulated a world view based on something you only believe to a possibility, and cannot prove,

Yeah, haven't you been taking any notice of what I've been saying?

yet deny the - let's generalise for a moment - 'scientifically' demonstrated visible evidence of the existence around you?

There is no scientifically visible evidence that shows any proof for a spinning globe and stars and such like.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

proof needs to be offered to show inaccuracies. None has so far from the global spinning Earth mindset.

You've shown less proof that it's anything other than a spinning globe.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But if I say go to keilder on a clear night I can see stars right above me but also to my right and left until my eyes can then see land so those low ones must be being protected at a very low angle from the centre so if a cloud was even many miles from the centre it would still be in the way and the light source should show on it?

If points of light move over and around Earth then of course you will see them lower and higher in the sky as they move over the dome.

Same as if I stood next to or behind a mountain I could still see stars almost at eye level to my left but no way of the light from the centre passing through the mountain?

Not sure what you're trying to say on this. You're not going to see light through a mountain if you're stood behind the mountain and blocking off that light.

Or am I missing what you're trying to say?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Or am I missing what you're trying to say?

Clearly, yes

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I don’t think I can explain it any better than that thread I posted and I don’t think I can explain anything to you. I do not have that ability.

No problem.

But lets look at what you think is wrong. You talk a lot about this spinning at 1000mph. Where do you get that number from?

I get varying numbers handed out through the books of so called fact. The one's you read most likely.

1038 mph at the equator and less and less as it moves to the so called poles.

Or is this not in those books anymore?

I can only argue against what those books tell as well as all the rest of the stories handed out.
By all means put it right.

 

[DaveH]

No problem.

I get varying numbers handed out through the books of so called fact. The one's you read most likely.

1038 mph at the equator and less and less as it moves to the so called poles.

Or is this not in those books anymore?

I can only argue against what those books tell as well as all the rest of the stories handed out.
By all means put it right.

Ok roughly 1000mph. Is that a figure from a book then or did you work it out? If you worked it out then how?

 

[payne]

Just been wondering there. What is a super carbon arc. Was it ever explained? What's its purpose?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Just got round to watching that. There is a pretty good explanation of view to the horizon, what a horizon is and field of view, from about 17 minutes in. The bloke is a bit annoying and his bit about smoothness gets waffly, but it picks up again. @Nukehasslefan , try watching from17 mins, it explains quite a few of the concepts you have been struggling with.

The nice thing is, you can actually test the same with a small camera and a large ball. It is only the scale that is different.

I'm not struggling with any of them.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Just been wondering there. What is a super carbon arc. Was it ever explained? What's its purpose?

It's just like a regular carbon arc, only super. It has no purpose other than to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yeah I've been trying to do some testing to try and work out at what point scale stops working

It stops working when it comes to a point where using it for something so big does not give anyone a view of the concept.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I'm not struggling with any of them.

Other than scale, curvature and gravity.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You've shown less proof that it's anything other than a spinning globe.

I only need one too prove Earth is not a spinning globe. Water level nails it.
The rest are just extras.

Ok roughly 1000mph. Is that a figure from a book then or did you work it out? If you worked it out then how?

It's from the so called science books that people are schooled into. I'm sure you know which one's.

Other than scale, curvature and gravity.

Nope. I have no issue with scale. It's pretty simple when showing stuff that can be shown to scale.
Earth size for viewing as a model is not so easy to scale.

Curvature is not an issue.

Gravity is nonsense so it's also not an issue.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I only need one too prove Earth is not a spinning globe. Water level nails it.
The rest are just extras.

Confusing the fuck out of you is not the same as 'nailing it.'
Everyone else sees it, gets it, moves on but you just keep bleating on about water level proving it's not a globe.
"Show me"
Someone shows you
"No-one has shown me"
Someone shows you again
"Show me proof"
Shows again with knobs on
"Depends how you look at it, but no-one has offered any proof"
Rinse and repeat

 

[DaveH]

It's from the so called science books that people are schooled into. I'm sure you know which one's.

So you are repeating what you have been told and have not worked this out by yourself?

In answer to that, I don't know which ones off hand.

Do you think this is the speed anywhere on the planet or just the equator?

It stops working when it comes to a point where using it for something so big does not give anyone a view of the concept.

I love this concept. Scale can be used to represent things at a different size, e.g. a large landscape shown on a map. But the idea of a scale diagram fails at a certain point depending on the viewers mindset. So for some a OS survey map might be fine but for others, nah, doesn't work.

 

[What A Waster]

It stops working when it comes to a point where using it for something so big does not give anyone a view of the concept.

At what size does scale stop working?

 

[payne]

H

So you are repeating what you have been told and have not worked this out by yourself?

In answer to that, I don't know which ones off hand.

Do you think this is the speed anywhere on the planet or just the equator?

I love this concept. Scale can be used to represent things at a different size, e.g. a large landscape shown on a map. But the idea of a scale diagram fails at a certain point depending on the viewers mindset. So for some a OS survey map might be fine but for others, nah, doesn't work.

What he thinks about his logic is incredible. It seems like insanity to everyone else.

At what size does scale stop working?

It's mad that he even says the sentence with a straight face.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Everyone else sees it, gets it, moves on but you just keep bleating on about water level proving it's not a globe.

I go on about it because it absolutely nails the fictional globe stone dead.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Nope. I have no issue with scale. It's pretty simple when showing stuff that can be shown to scale.
Earth size for viewing as a model is not so easy to scale.

Curvature is not an issue.

Gravity is nonsense so it's also not an issue.

You clearly do and have shown this several times in the thread.
Curvature clearly is an issue, because you claim it's not there and everyone else can see that it is.
Gravity is also an issue for much the same reason. You don't get it so you claim it's stupid and non-existent.

I don't think anyone has a problem with you believing in whatever you choose, however stupid, and as you so frequently point out, it's your opinions and not stated as fact. Fair enough for your super-carbon bollocks and your crystal projectors, but you do state as fact things like "it's not a globe" and "gravity doesn't exist" which is rightly challenged. You cant keep saying no-one has offered proof while refusing to look at anything offered. You cant claim to be open minded and scientific while making your conclusions before doing experiments and refusing to consider anything shown to you by others.

I say you cant, but clearly you can and most likely will.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So you are repeating what you have been told and have not worked this out by yourself?

I'm questioning what I've read up on and what I've been told.
There's no need to work anything out for a story of fiction.

In answer to that, I don't know which ones off hand.

Do you think this is the speed anywhere on the planet or just the equator?

I don;t think it's any speed of a globe. I don't believe we are on a spinning globe.

I love this concept. Scale can be used to represent things at a different size, e.g. a large landscape shown on a map. But the idea of a scale diagram fails at a certain point depending on the viewers mindset. So for some a OS survey map might be fine but for others, nah, doesn't work.

To show someone an idea with something the size of Earth. Scale is not going to cut it and you know this.