Put a flat earthier into space

[legend7]

Some great shots here, sort of on/off topic, didn't seem to hit any dome or mention one though.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[ned_werby]

It's the "I'm not saying it's a fact, it's just what I believe." swiftly followed by "But I know it's true, 100%".

Essentially he believes that because we don't know everything, we know nothing. And because he can't (or won't) conduct easy experiments, he won't believe any counter-argument.

It's an interesting thought experiment, for a while. But honestly, he's spent at least 10 years of his life, arguing that the world is some kind of uniquely improbable object. That he, and he alone, knows the Truth!

An impossible, easily disproved, fundamentally flawed 'Truth'.

The temptation to call him a nitwit etc. is massive, simply because of his arrogance. However, above all, it's just so desperately sad that someone finds themselves in this sort of position. Irrefutably wrong, irrefutably intransigent and completely lacking in self-awareness.

 

[The Fish]

The temptation to call him a nitwit etc. is massive, simply because of his arrogance. However, above all, it's just so desperately sad that someone finds themselves in this sort of position. Irrefutably wrong, irrefutably intransigent and completely lacking in self-awareness.

I enjoyed this subtle shot across the bow.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Of course it's not possible by looking around a room. You can't look around Earth that way so using one room as an entirety would not offer any realistic view of the potential of what we are living on/in.

Except that's not what I was doing was it? I wasn't talking about looking around Earth, I was talking about the sky, it's a big thing that can be seen from pretty much anywhere on Earth, you must have heard of it.
Your claim was that the entire sky can be displayed accurately on a dome like a planetarium, my point was that it cant because the only way to display what is actually known to be there, provable, verifiable and undeniable (except for by you of course), on a dome or planetarium is if the dome/planetarium were spherical.
I even made the point of saying "I'm not saying the sky is a sphere so don't say I am" and your priceless reply....

You basically are saying it is.

Logon or register to see this image

Sheer size and following a circle will offer you two different light point set ups. One set for Each side with some of those set ups actually being see from each side, only sort of mirrored.

No they wont, you cannot accurately reproduce what is seen around us on a dome unless the dome is spherical.
This is why I gave the room example where you cant project four walls plus ceiling and floor onto just the ceiling and two walls and still have it look right.
I thought it would be a simple enough example that you could understand. One whole squished onto a half doesn't work, two halves can be squished onto one half but will not look right.
For the planetarium example to show what is actually there correctly you would need a second planetarium upside down, directly beneath the first.

But you clearly know a man made projector can offer you a visual on points of light upon a dome....right?
But you don't think it's possible we could have a naturally centred one.

Correct. I don't think it even remotely possible.
There is more chance of me single handedly qualifying for and winning the World Cup, blindfold with a pineapple up my arse than for your super carbon arc crystal projector occurring naturally and somehow managing to create by pure chance alone, the sky as we see it.

 

[SYB_DC]

Well I still want to know how they're spinning globes. Show me some pictures/video of them being spinning globes.
I don't mean NASA/Hollywood type, I mean the observable one's that's said to be the case.

There is literally no way to present this in a way that you will credit. Either I will show you a time-lapse of a zoomed-in and sped up shot of each planet - which you will say is "NASA/Hollywood type" but that will clearly show them rotating - or I can show you the observed, naked-eye version of a time lapse of telescope star field images, in which you won't be able to even find either planet, let alone note that they rotate.

Here, as is pretty consistently the case at this point, your only "argument" is to construct a wall of ignorance so thick that literally nothing can penetrate it.

But to test that, here is a time-lapse image of Venus rotating:

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[ivanthereasonable]

You think the world is flat ? Watch this. Very entertaining.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[DaveH]

There is literally no way to present this in a way that you will credit. Either I will show you a time-lapse of a zoomed-in and sped up shot of each planet - which you will say is "NASA/Hollywood type" but that will clearly show them rotating - or I can show you the observed, naked-eye version of a time lapse of telescope star field images, in which you won't be able to even find either planet, let alone note that they rotate.

Here, as is pretty consistently the case at this point, your only "argument" is to construct a wall of ignorance so thick that literally nothing can penetrate it.

But to test that, here is a time-lapse image of Venus rotating:

You must be logged on to see external links

Or the other option is (because you can see the spinning effect on Mars and Jupiter) is to just say "That is not spinning, you only think you can see them spinning because it is what you expect to see".

That is often the standard answer but rarely a recognition that it reflects reality.

Water is wet. Oh really or do you only think it feels wet because you expect that it is? You have been told that narrative since you were born and I understand, I used to think the same, it is hard to break that because it is drummed into you constantly.

Well yes, it could be, that is true. But that doesn't rule out the most likely scenario that water is wet.

We can see some planets spin, we can see them move in circular orbits around the sun, we can build computer or mechanical models to accurately predict their orbits, showing that the whole concept of planets in orbit of the sun does actually work as a concept. That is a pretty strong hint that it all works, especially when you can't build a working model or demonstration of the alternative rather retarded answer and can't produce any maths to predict where stuff will be.

 

[Nobby]

I'm possibly missing something as I last really looked at pressure doing A level physics back in the mists of time when A levels followed O levels.

My understanding is that pressure in a sealed container is uniform within the container. It can increase and decrease but does so throughout the container. So point A in the container is at the same pressure as point B.

"Cell world" is a sealed unit do how do the various phenomena reliant on pressure changes happen? Thinking tides, denpressure where things stack according to density giving a pressure gradient with altitude ( used to explain solar heating and horizon if I remember correctly, though the details aren't important).
Big picture question is how do you have discrete pressure zones interacting in a sealed container?

Btw, this is not a question for nukehasslefan, it's for the grown ups

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Except that's not what I was doing was it? I wasn't talking about looking around Earth, I was talking about the sky, it's a big thing that can be seen from pretty much anywhere on Earth, you must have heard of it.

Aye. Seen all around the circle looking up at the dome. I haven't seen it all because I haven't been all around the circle. Have you?

Your claim was that the entire sky can be displayed accurately on a dome like a planetarium, my point was that it cant because the only way to display what is actually known to be there, provable, verifiable and undeniable (except for by you of course), on a dome or planetarium is if the dome/planetarium were spherical.

The dome would be what it is. Covering the entire Earth, not being spherical around it.

I even made the point of saying "I'm not saying the sky is a sphere so don't say I am" and your priceless reply....

So what is it?

Logon or register to see this image

No they wont, you cannot accurately reproduce what is seen around us on a dome unless the dome is spherical.

I'm not going to sit and map stars on a dome.
And I'm not going to accurately depict Earth when I'm not in the know of what Earth entirety really is.
It's why I don't offer it as factual. I offer it as a possibility.
The globe is offered as factual but has no proof but people argue for it being factual simply because everything is mapped out for them to follow.

This is why I gave the room example where you cant project four walls plus ceiling and floor onto just the ceiling and two walls and still have it look right.

Of course but then you wouldn't be doing that on your globe at once.

I thought it would be a simple enough example that you could understand.

I do but you didn't like my answer.

One whole squished onto a half doesn't work, two halves can be squished onto one half but will not look right.

It's not squished into half.

For the planetarium example to show what is actually there correctly you would need a second planetarium upside down, directly beneath the first.

Or a vision of it from people living on parts of the circle under different reflective conditions.

Correct. I don't think it even remotely possible.
There is more chance of me single handedly qualifying for and winning the World Cup, blindfold with a pineapple up my arse than for your super carbon arc crystal projector occurring naturally and somehow managing to create by pure chance alone, the sky as we see it.

I'd go even farther than that with a spinning globe. I'd add whilst balancing on one toe atop a massive obelisk with golden Eagles all attacking me and me staying balanced.

There is literally no way to present this in a way that you will credit. Either I will show you a time-lapse of a zoomed-in and sped up shot of each planet - which you will say is "NASA/Hollywood type" but that will clearly show them rotating - or I can show you the observed, naked-eye version of a time lapse of telescope star field images, in which you won't be able to even find either planet, let alone note that they rotate.

I just want the rotating one's that you've observed.

Here, as is pretty consistently the case at this point, your only "argument" is to construct a wall of ignorance so thick that literally nothing can penetrate it.

I'm entitled to be ignorant if proof is not offered.
Nobody should be expected to accept as factual something which offers none.

But to test that, here is a time-lapse image of Venus rotating:

You must be logged on to see external links

Is that a real time-lapse of Venus rotating of is it a depiction of what we're supposed to believe is happening?

 

[payne]

Aye. Seen all around the circle looking up at the dome. I haven't seen it all because I haven't been all around the circle. Have you?

The dome would be what it is. Covering the entire Earth, not being spherical around it.

So what is it?

I'm not going to sit and map stars on a dome.
And I'm not going to accurately depict Earth when I'm not in the know of what Earth entirety really is.
It's why I don't offer it as factual. I offer it as a possibility.
The globe is offered as factual but has no proof but people argue for it being factual simply because everything is mapped out for them to follow.

Of course but then you wouldn't be doing that on your globe at once.

I do but you didn't like my answer.

It's not squished into half.

Or a vision of it from people living on parts of the circle under different reflective conditions.

I'd go even farther than that with a spinning globe. I'd add whilst balancing on one toe atop a massive obelisk with golden Eagles all attacking me and me staying balanced.

I just want the rotating one's that you've observed.

I'm entitled to be ignorant if proof is not offered.
Nobody should be expected to accept as factual something which offers none.

Is that a real time-lapse of Venus rotating of is it a depiction of what we're supposed to believe is happening?

IQ off the charts

 

[Nobby]

IQ off the charts

Unfortunately the bottom end of the charts

 

[payne]

Unfortunately the bottom end of the charts

His common sense approach is a joy to behold.

Like I've said before, he could be taken up to the space station and would still shout dome Earth the brainwashed sod.

It's actually a shame he's been fooled in this way.

 

[fyl2u]

I'm entitled to be ignorant

Absolutely.

if proof is not offered.

...which it has, but you refuse to open your eyes to anything that suggests you might be wrong about ANYTHING.

Nobody should be expected to accept as factual something which offers none.

Indeed. Unfortunately, you don't accept anything as factual that is actually factual if it goes against your pre-made judgments.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Nukehasslefan said:
I'm entitled to be ignorant if proof is not offered.

fyl2u said:​

Absolutely.
...which it has, but you refuse to open your eyes to anything that suggests you might be wrong about ANYTHING.
Nukehasslefan said: There is no proof.

Nukehasslefan said:
Nobody should be expected to accept as factual something which offers none.

fyl2u said:Indeed. Unfortunately, you don't accept anything as factual that is actually factual if it goes against your pre-made judgments.​

Nukehasslefan said:I accept a lot of stuff as factual if I can verify it or it can be verified by trusted people. Otherwise I simply accept something without much argument if it doesn't beg questions.

The stuff I argue against begs questions in the severity mode.

 

[fyl2u]

fyl2u said:
Absolutely.
...which it has, but you refuse to open your eyes to anything that suggests you might be wrong about ANYTHING.
Nukehasslefan said: There is no proof.

Liar.

fyl2u said:Indeed. Unfortunately, you don't accept anything as factual that is actually factual if it goes against your pre-made judgments.

Nukehasslefan said:I accept a lot of stuff as factual if I can verify it or it can be verified by trusted people. Otherwise I simply accept something without much argument if it doesn't beg questions.

No you don't. The only things you ever accept are the lies told to you by the Flat Earth Society.

You deny all the proofs, mathematical explanations and physical laws that go against your closed-minded belief system.

The stuff I argue against begs questions in the severity mode.

You would argue black was white if "black" led to a logical conclusion that you were wrong about something you'd said previously.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The only things you ever accept are the lies told to you by the Flat Earth Society.

I don't believe in a flat Earth, just flat water and small areas of flat land.

You deny all the proofs, mathematical explanations and physical laws that go against your closed-minded belief system.

Mathematical explanations that show facts are not an issue.
Let's go back a bit and see.
Tell me how far your moon is and tell me how that was worked out, plus its size.
Can you do this and present it as factual?
Use the maths/calculations handed to you if you want.

You would argue black was white if "black" led to a logical conclusion that you were wrong about something you'd said previously.

I'll argue when something doesn't make sense.

 

[fyl2u]

I don't believe in a flat Earth, just flat water and small areas of flat land.

Yes, you do believe in a flat earth. The continents and oceans on your "cell world" are spread out across a FLAT plane as opposed to a curved one. That's what is meant by "flat earth". Not even the most hardcore flat earther tries to suggest that hills, mountains and valleys don't exist.

Mathematical explanations that show facts are not an issue.

Yes, they are, as you've shown time and time again on this thread.

Let's go back a bit and see.
Tell me how far your moon is and tell me how that was worked out, plus its size.
Can you do this and present it as factual?
Use the maths/calculations handed to you if you want.

There's no point. You've shown many times on this thread that you don't understand even the most rudimentary geometry. I spent 25 pages trying to get you to understand what a tangent and normal of a circle were, and we still ended up with you making such bizarre statements as "not all right angles are equal" and "it depends on how thick you draw the line".

I'm not going to spend the next thirty pages trying to get you to agree that = is an equals sign.

I'll argue when something doesn't make sense.

Which for you means arguing against everything, because you comprehend nothing.

 

[DaveH]

I'm possibly missing something as I last really looked at pressure doing A level physics back in the mists of time when A levels followed O levels.

My understanding is that pressure in a sealed container is uniform within the container. It can increase and decrease but does so throughout the container. So point A in the container is at the same pressure as point B.

"Cell world" is a sealed unit do how do the various phenomena reliant on pressure changes happen? Thinking tides, denpressure where things stack according to density giving a pressure gradient with altitude ( used to explain solar heating and horizon if I remember correctly, though the details aren't important).
Big picture question is how do you have discrete pressure zones interacting in a sealed container?

Btw, this is not a question for nukehasslefan, it's for the grown ups

I don't know for sure, but the size of the container shouldl come into it.

You are right that something like a bubble has equal pressure throughout, balanced against the surface tension of the liquid, so it forms the most efficient shape which is a spinning ball of soapy water. If the top was higher pressure than the bottom, it would not form a sphere.

But bubbles are really small.

Now imagine a metal cube box 5 miles along each length with a small amount of water in the bottom. You start to heat one corner, the water starts turning to steam and pressure increases in that corner. The whole container will not heat evenly so you will get a difference in pressure in that one corner.

Now consider the earth. That is huge and although we can travel through it, our atmosphere acts as a container and we get different air pressures across the earth.

His common sense approach is a joy to behold.

Like I've said before, he could be taken up to the space station and would still shout dome Earth the brainwashed sod.

It's actually a shame he's been fooled in this way.

I think it is a sign of something in modern culture and I don't know what the change has been.

Backing down on an idea in front of a few mates is often difficult, but half the time they might not even notice the change. But now most of the UK population broadcast every aspect of their life into a permanent record for all to see. How many times recently has someone famous said something and immediately someone has said "ah, but what about this tweet 7 years ago"? Even famous people could not make a statement without an interview or press conference. Now you have the likes of Boris tweeting government policy at the French president. Everything is public. What you think one day defines you, people seem to label everything in the extremes. Do you love ice cream? I would not say love. You are an ice cream hater and despise all forms of dairy and cold products.

But the whole Boris government is a great example. There are things going on there which would have been completely indefensible just 10 years ago. The stuff he gets away with would have seen most governments hounded out of office. But he promised Brexit, he was not Corbyn, whatever the view point of people who voted for him, in the face of adversity they seem to have doubled down and will defend anything. You have people who would have never considered voting Tory 10 years ago now publicly defending everything to the hilt. It is not just political either. People seem to want to find a viewpoint or something that is right for them at the time then pin it as a label to them and allow it to define them for a long time.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes, you do believe in a flat earth. The continents and oceans on your "cell world" are spread out across a FLAT plane as opposed to a curved one. That's what is meant by "flat earth". Not even the most hardcore flat earther tries to suggest that hills, mountains and valleys don't exist.

Don't forget the container the water/seas/oceans sit in.
Containers, not flat, water is flat when calm.



Nukehasslefan said:
Let's go back a bit and see.
Tell me how far your moon is and tell me how that was worked out, plus its size.
Can you do this and present it as factual?
Use the maths/calculations handed to you if you want.

There's no point. You've shown many times on this thread that you don't understand even the most rudimentary geometry. I spent 25 pages trying to get. you to understand what a tangent and normal of a circle were, and we still ended up with you making such bizarre statements as "not all right angles are equal" and "it depends on how thick you draw the line".

I'm not going to spend the next thirty pages trying to get you to agree that = is an equals sign.




Which for you means arguing against everything, because you comprehend nothing.

So basically you have no clue how far your moon is or how big it is without appealing to authority....right?

 

[fyl2u]

Don't forget the container the water/seas/oceans sit in.
Containers, not flat, water is flat when calm.

The container is sitting on a flat plane, not a spherical one. Hence "flat earth". You ARE a flat earther. Your "cell world" is merely a wacky variation of the traditional "flat earth" snowdome model.

Nukehasslefan said:
Let's go back a bit and see.
Tell me how far your moon is and tell me how that was worked out, plus its size.
Can you do this and present it as factual?
Use the maths/calculations handed to you if you want.

So basically you have no clue how far your moon is or how big it is without appealing to authority....right?

I think you need to read that previous post again.

If you can't understand the absolute most simple basics of geometry, then there's absolutely no point me trying to explain anything more complicated to you because it would take fifty pages of back and forth and you'd still be arguing that sometimes a minus is a plus, Pythagoras' theory makes no sense, scale drawings only work for small objects not big ones, and that the angles involved in the equation depend on how thick you draw the lines.