Put a flat earthier into space

[chelt_mackem]

DaveH said:
Ok so 24 hours for a rotation (we call this a 'day'). Do you accept that the given diameter of the earth is 7917.5 miles or have a circumference of 24,873.6 miles at the equator?

All right. So linear speed is distance over time, someone standing on a spinning earth at the equator will travel 24,873.6 miles in 24 hours, so:
24,873.6/24 = 1,036.4mph
or rounding it for convenience the 1,000mph you keep parroting. You said earlier you didn't know where the figure comes from, that is how we work out the 1000mph. Happy with that calculation?

Now here is something I think is going to blow your mind. This is not quite the image I was looking for, but you can imagine a sphere as a load of discs of different sizes stacked on top of each other, a little bit like:

Logon or register to see this image

You can see in that image that the largest disc is in the middle and there are smaller ones to where we could imagine the poles to be if it were a globe planet. The smaller disc has a smaller circumference so someone standing on one of those would travel a smaller distance in 24 hours. Applying to the real world, Sunderland is at a latitude of 54.9 degrees so that gives a smaller distance travelled per day for Sunderland, which in turn means a lower speed. Someone at Sunderland travels at 598.2 mph [1] which is approaching half the speed of people at the equator, and pretty close to the speed of a commercial aircraft. We don't get pinned back in our seats when flying, except a little while accelerating up the runway. What about other people? People in Newcastle are slower than people in Sunderland.

If you go to Svalbard (I really want to go there), you are only at 78.9 degrees latitude. Your speed is then 200 mph. We are approaching fast train speed here. Once you approach the pole, your speed gets lower and lower. Certainly within the realms of what we would consider a speed we would not really expect to notice.

Now what would happen if there was a straight line of people north to south, hand in hand from the northern tip of Russia down into Malaysia? For each person, the person on one side would be going faster than them and the person on the other would be going slower. How can that be? Would the people in the north act as an anchor for the whole line to stop the people at 1000mph flying away? What then if they all jumped? You said someone jumping the earth would spin under them, so if they all jumped at the same time to the same height, then would the straight line land in a diagonal? What if they carried a rigid bar between them, would this shatter as soon as they jumped?

Clearly that whole concept is absurd. So what is going on here?

We have been using linear speed to measure angular velocity and it works differently. The angular velocity of the spin of the earth is very small. 360 degrees in 24 hours, 15 degrees per hour, 0.25 degrees per minute or 0.004 degrees per second.

Using the same method, you can also picture the hands on a large clock. The tip of the minute hand travels slower than the bit that joins the hub. Does that make any sense? No, of course not. Spin a solid ball and the inside rotates slower than the outside, so does it just pull itself apart? No.

Essentially linear speed is bollocks when it comes to a rotating body. The earth spins very slowly and saying whoa 1000mph is just a load of crap. And again, we feel forces acting on us, not speed. Speed is mass x acceleration and if your speed is constant, acceleration is zero so there is no force. Like what I said above, you feel a plane accelerate up the runway but when at cruising speed, despite being over 500 mph, you can walk about the plane without feeling a thing. Zero force.

[1] Rotation speed at latitude calculator at

You must be logged on to see external links

, including the formula. Yes I can prove this from first principals and agree with it, yes it can be tested on a sphere of any size, but I didn't feel the need to go into that.

Genius

Bravo! Yet again, a great explanation of facts we just take for granted.

People in Newcastle are slower than people in Sunderland.

This bit is definitely true

 

[Nobby]

DaveH said:
Ok so 24 hours for a rotation (we call this a 'day'). Do you accept that the given diameter of the earth is 7917.5 miles or have a circumference of 24,873.6 miles at the equator?

All right. So linear speed is distance over time, someone standing on a spinning earth at the equator will travel 24,873.6 miles in 24 hours, so:
24,873.6/24 = 1,036.4mph
or rounding it for convenience the 1,000mph you keep parroting. You said earlier you didn't know where the figure comes from, that is how we work out the 1000mph. Happy with that calculation?

Now here is something I think is going to blow your mind. This is not quite the image I was looking for, but you can imagine a sphere as a load of discs of different sizes stacked on top of each other, a little bit like:

Logon or register to see this image

You can see in that image that the largest disc is in the middle and there are smaller ones to where we could imagine the poles to be if it were a globe planet. The smaller disc has a smaller circumference so someone standing on one of those would travel a smaller distance in 24 hours. Applying to the real world, Sunderland is at a latitude of 54.9 degrees so that gives a smaller distance travelled per day for Sunderland, which in turn means a lower speed. Someone at Sunderland travels at 598.2 mph [1] which is approaching half the speed of people at the equator, and pretty close to the speed of a commercial aircraft. We don't get pinned back in our seats when flying, except a little while accelerating up the runway. What about other people? People in Newcastle are slower than people in Sunderland.

If you go to Svalbard (I really want to go there), you are only at 78.9 degrees latitude. Your speed is then 200 mph. We are approaching fast train speed here. Once you approach the pole, your speed gets lower and lower. Certainly within the realms of what we would consider a speed we would not really expect to notice.

Now what would happen if there was a straight line of people north to south, hand in hand from the northern tip of Russia down into Malaysia? For each person, the person on one side would be going faster than them and the person on the other would be going slower. How can that be? Would the people in the north act as an anchor for the whole line to stop the people at 1000mph flying away? What then if they all jumped? You said someone jumping the earth would spin under them, so if they all jumped at the same time to the same height, then would the straight line land in a diagonal? What if they carried a rigid bar between them, would this shatter as soon as they jumped?

Clearly that whole concept is absurd. So what is going on here?

We have been using linear speed to measure angular velocity and it works differently. The angular velocity of the spin of the earth is very small. 360 degrees in 24 hours, 15 degrees per hour, 0.25 degrees per minute or 0.004 degrees per second.

Using the same method, you can also picture the hands on a large clock. The tip of the minute hand travels slower than the bit that joins the hub. Does that make any sense? No, of course not. Spin a solid ball and the inside rotates slower than the outside, so does it just pull itself apart? No.

Essentially linear speed is bollocks when it comes to a rotating body. The earth spins very slowly and saying whoa 1000mph is just a load of crap. And again, we feel forces acting on us, not speed. Speed is mass x acceleration and if your speed is constant, acceleration is zero so there is no force. Like what I said above, you feel a plane accelerate up the runway but when at cruising speed, despite being over 500 mph, you can walk about the plane without feeling a thing. Zero force.

[1] Rotation speed at latitude calculator at

You must be logged on to see external links

, including the formula. Yes I can prove this from first principals and agree with it, yes it can be tested on a sphere of any size, but I didn't feel the need to go into that.

Genius

Very good and clear, only one point a slight typo, force = mass * acceleration rather than speed = m*a

Don't want him try and rubbish your very good explanation on a typo

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I think you may need help mate

I'm fine; don't worry yourself about me.

It doesn't matter, we are simply talking about all of the gas ejected from the engine nozzle during operation. Is it all stopped by the atmospheric barrier or not

It's resisted by the atmosphere to create the barrier.

Your whole reasoning for saying Australia existed was because you know someone who has been or lives there.

Nope.
I accept Australia exists because I don't feel I need to question it and can, if I choose to....go there.
Accepting something is fine. I accept lots of stuff that I haven't physically proven.

So what's the difference?

Difference with what?

Simply because there is actually evidence you change tact yet again.

If there's evidence and that evidence seems fair enough, I'll accept it and feel no need to question it.
If it doesn't add up, I'll question it.

So why do they begin to point south as you cross north/ your central crystal non existent nonsense area, and no matter which country you set off from to cross that area, always the same result?

They don't. You can't pass the centre. In my opinion. so all you can do is skirt around it, which means you can go north for a set time until you can't physically go any farther. And then you skirt around the centre.

So how big do you think the central generator is for it to heat the whole planet by bouncing stuff from a helium dome, how many miles across roughly?

I honestly don't know how big it is. I'll tell you what it's not. It's not a few million miles in circumference like the one offered to us all our lives.

You're one of the thickest and closed minded people I've ever known, and you say we just follow a narrative

No problem. You're quite entitled to think what you want about me and I'm ok with it.

Is your alleged wife inflatable by any chance,

I don;t know, she's alleged.

there is no way she could be daft enough to put up with you man

I might be just making her up and really be just sat in the basement in my Y fronts and string vest with pizza boxes and coke cans strewn all over.

Make a picture of my life and go with it then when you come back into the thread to tell me I'm thick and what not but then ask me questions...have a small word with yourself and ask yourself, why would you bother with someone like you picture them?

If it's great fun and you just enjoy it, then carry on. If you are interested in the argument but dare not admit it, then it's also fine.

 

[Nobby]

It's resisted by the atmosphere to create the barrier.

That hasn't answered the question, are all of the gasses stopped by the atmospheric barrier or not

 

[legend7]

I'm fine; don't worry yourself about me.

It's resisted by the atmosphere to create the barrier.

Nope.
I accept Australia exists because I don't feel I need to question it and can, if I choose to....go there.
Accepting something is fine. I accept lots of stuff that I haven't physically proven.

Difference with what?

If there's evidence and that evidence seems fair enough, I'll accept it and feel no need to question it.
If it doesn't add up, I'll question it.

They don't. You can't pass the centre. In my opinion. so all you can do is skirt around it, which means you can go north for a set time until you can't physically go any farther. And then you skirt around the centre.

I honestly don't know how big it is. I'll tell you what it's not. It's not a few million miles in circumference like the one offered to us all our lives.

No problem. You're quite entitled to think what you want about me and I'm ok with it.

I don;t know, she's alleged.

I might be just making her up and really be just sat in the basement in my Y fronts and string vest with pizza boxes and coke cans strewn all over.

Make a picture of my life and go with it then when you come back into the thread to tell me I'm thick and what not but then ask me questions...have a small word with yourself and ask yourself, why would you bother with someone like you picture them?

If it's great fun and you just enjoy it, then carry on. If you are interested in the argument but dare not admit it, then it's also fine.

So a rough idea bearing in mind it heats whole continents, I mean you seem to know how most of it works down to fine details...

So 1 mile wide, 100 miles wide, 1000?
Which do you think is closest?

 

[DaveH]

Very good and clear, only one point a slight typo, force = mass * acceleration rather than speed = m*a

Don't want him try and rubbish your very good explanation on a typo

Speed is distance over time. Force is mass x acceleration (F=MA)

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You refuse to accept space exists but you know better than Newton how stuff would behave while in it.

I don't know how stuff would behave in the space you say Newton knew. I can only use extreme low pressure to argue it because a vacuum cannot exist.
So this means that space as they tell us, cannot exist, unless it gets changed to extreme low pressure, in which case it would destroy all the fiction stories passed off as fact, so I doubt that would be offered.

DaveH said:
Ok so 24 hours for a rotation (we call this a 'day'). Do you accept that the given diameter of the earth is 7917.5 miles or have a circumference of 24,873.6 miles at the equator?

All right. So linear speed is distance over time, someone standing on a spinning earth at the equator will travel 24,873.6 miles in 24 hours, so:
24,873.6/24 = 1,036.4mph
or rounding it for convenience the 1,000mph you keep parroting. You said earlier you didn't know where the figure comes from, that is how we work out the 1000mph. Happy with that calculation?

Yeah I can go along with what's said about the fictional model.

Now here is something I think is going to blow your mind. This is not quite the image I was looking for, but you can imagine a sphere as a load of discs of different sizes stacked on top of each other, a little bit like:

Logon or register to see this image

You can see in that image that the largest disc is in the middle and there are smaller ones to where we could imagine the poles to be if it were a globe planet. The smaller disc has a smaller circumference so someone standing on one of those would travel a smaller distance in 24 hours. Applying to the real world, Sunderland is at a latitude of 54.9 degrees so that gives a smaller distance travelled per day for Sunderland, which in turn means a lower speed. Someone at Sunderland travels at 598.2 mph [1] which is approaching half the speed of people at the equator, and pretty close to the speed of a commercial aircraft. We don't get pinned back in our seats when flying, except a little while accelerating up the runway. What about other people? People in Newcastle are slower than people in Sunderland.

If you go to Svalbard (I really want to go there), you are only at 78.9 degrees latitude. Your speed is then 200 mph. We are approaching fast train speed here. Once you approach the pole, your speed gets lower and lower. Certainly within the realms of what we would consider a speed we would not really expect to notice.

Now what would happen if there was a straight line of people north to south, hand in hand from the northern tip of Russia down into Malaysia? For each person, the person on one side would be going faster than them and the person on the other would be going slower. How can that be? Would the people in the north act as an anchor for the whole line to stop the people at 1000mph flying away? What then if they all jumped? You said someone jumping the earth would spin under them, so if they all jumped at the same time to the same height, then would the straight line land in a diagonal? What if they carried a rigid bar between them, would this shatter as soon as they jumped?

Clearly that whole concept is absurd. So what is going on here?

We have been using linear speed to measure angular velocity and it works differently. The angular velocity of the spin of the earth is very small. 360 degrees in 24 hours, 15 degrees per hour, 0.25 degrees per minute or 0.004 degrees per second.

Using the same method, you can also picture the hands on a large clock. The tip of the minute hand travels slower than the bit that joins the hub. Does that make any sense? No, of course not. Spin a solid ball and the inside rotates slower than the outside, so does it just pull itself apart? No.

Essentially linear speed is bollocks when it comes to a rotating body. The earth spins very slowly and saying whoa 1000mph is just a load of crap. And again, we feel forces acting on us, not speed. Speed is mass x acceleration and if your speed is constant, acceleration is zero so there is no force. Like what I said above, you feel a plane accelerate up the runway but when at cruising speed, despite being over 500 mph, you can walk about the plane without feeling a thing. Zero force.

[1] Rotation speed at latitude calculator at

You must be logged on to see external links

, including the formula. Yes I can prove this from first principals and agree with it, yes it can be tested on a sphere of any size, but I didn't feel the need to go into that.

I know what's supposedly said about rotation getting slower for the person stood higher or lower on the so called sphere.
I'm talking about your equator and the rest can stay out of it as it's not even relevant.
What is relevant is the 1000 mph at the equator as we're told.
It's angular momentum. It's rotational momentum, not angular acceleration nor rotational acceleration.
But we all know speed against a curve will offer a force to be felt, not matter how it's dressed up.

We do not feel any movement because there isn't any movement, because we are not on a spinning globe.

 

[Nobby]

That hasn't answered the question, are all of the gasses stopped by the atmospheric barrier or not

Why are you do unwilling to answer the question?

 

[legend7]

I've done quite a few experiments with very low pressure. None in a vacuum because a vacuum does not exist.

Were you not going to share some of these numerous experiments.
Even 3 may educate us?

 

[fyl2u]

Were you not going to share some of these numerous experiments.
Even 3 may educate us?

He once stayed in the bath all day and did no housework. There was hardly any pressure on him because his wife was in the bicycle shop having her puncture repaired.

 

[legend7]

He once stayed in the bath all day and did no housework. There was hardly any pressure on him because his wife was in the bicycle shop having her puncture repaired.

As long as it was at least a little pressure as vacuums don't exist remember

 

[fyl2u]

As long as it was at least a little pressure as vacuums don't exist remember

I know vacuums exist. I own a Henry.

 

[zwartekat]

Maybe something a bit more advanced than we think.

Yep. It's about basically thinking on how we as humans operate in our lives and how that comes about for us to be basically compliant.
We clearly see a big bunch of people who supposedly rule over us and its about asking ourselves if these people are capable of actually controlling a populace or are they merely puppets for something bigger.

What is progression though?
It's fine to say we've got central heating and computers and cars and machinery...etc....etc. But is that really progression?
And if so, for what end?
It's about understanding what purpose we serve to Earth and if this progression is more of us as a disease to it rather than a natural evolving.
We appear to be our very own creationists and are in control of natural evolving, or is it us that's really controlling it or are we in a belief that we are?

It depends.
How does one person become spokesperson for the group?
How does one small group become accepted as the group to control the wider group or groups?
Is the pen mightier than the sword and if so...why?
Is the power of speech of one person of great stories mightier than the power of collective masses who want something to feed upon?
Animals and especially humans appear to need something or someone to follow. To be directed and to feel they have purpose, whether that's wearing a uniform of whatever description or by being given a role that offers them a purpose to those who they accept as their controllers, on the face of it.

It depends on how people want to look at it.
It may only be a film but did you ever watch the Truman show?
Likely you have and you could look at the premise of that film and think of ourselves being controlled because we do not have the means to find out what's really what because our every move is sort of controlled.
We generally just accept it and carry on with our lives bickering with each other and basically ensuring we do our own policing of those who dare to think outside of the box.


It depends on how you want to view life itself and what you believe is your role of relevance within it.

It's about starting at the beginning and wondering what triggers the inquisitive mind.
It takes one ponder to lead to many, whether its inventing something or questioning something you believed.

Let's start with Santa.
Yeah I know, it seems irrelevant....but is it?

Why are we lied to even if it's for the supposed greater good with Santa and yet we're consistently being scared witless with news about all kinds of diseases and potential catastrophes?
It could. We could. The chances are it's not if but when.
And so on.
What I'm saying is, if we're told to follow something of a story and have no way of knowing if the story is fiction or fact..when do we get to decide?

It comes down to the bare bones of what you believed as a kid and finding out your belief's were based on lies but realising your parents followed a set pattern from their parents in order for you to enjoy a day of gifts but being so unselfish as to offer you a fat bearded man in a red and white coat and hat who came down your chimney to give you all the presents you asked for, even though your parents may have struggled to buy them.

Imagine the kids mind thanking Santa and not realising the person is a fiction.
But it's for the greater good...right?
Then you get a bit older and someone tells you Santa is that fiction. You argue it at first and tell all and sundry how you once saw him in the sky or heard him and his sleigh on the roof. Or whatever.

Then you reason that your parents were the one's that really bought you all your gifts and they were just happy to give you the mindset of knowing there was a man with a sleigh full of presents out there that deemed you important because you were good.

And so you carry on that lie for the greater good of your own kids.
Religion is similar but you're encouraged not to grow out of it.

You have to ponder what the overall greater good actually is.
It's a control by means of good cop bad cop means.... to keep the animals docile enough to understand their place.

People take a stance in life as being something, whilst others may feel their stance is not worthwhile without realising that everybody counts whether you can write neatly or can't write at all.
The writer can be a copier of words or narration.
The so called illiterate maybe just the person to invent something remarkable yet feel their worth is nothing compared to the person who can read or write.
Who gets to decide the relevance?

The pen is mightier than the sword.
The speech from one person can dictate the happenings of millions. But who writes the speech? The person themselves or are they following the narratives.

Are we compelled to simply believe what we do based on a mass build up and a following of that? The answer is....yes.
Inquisitive minds to the contrary are cast aside as the illiterates. The dummies. The backward. It keeps the masses as just that. Afraid to think outside of the box for fear they upset the apple cart.

Anyway I've went off on one here just to say, it takes one thing to ponder that goes against the masses to realise the rabbit hole may just go deeper and deeper.
When you question one thing it opens up a massive can of worms.

Thanks for that. I am certain that your beliefs in the physical world are absolutely wrong but that doesn't really matter.

Interestingly, I think there will be a lot in common between those of us who believe in the spinning globe and yourself regarding some of the things you've outlined above. I'd be surprised if there are any of us who haven't pondered on what our purpose is. The human ego finds it very difficult to deal with ideas such as there might be no purpose. Maybe we just exist. It's a big part of why some kind of afterlife is so attractive to so many humans.

Having said that, I don't agree with everything you've written. Most inquisitive minds aren't cast aside as illiterate. They are given free reign to find ways to allow us to travel, stay warm, fight disease, etc. even if we're not sure to what purpose. Perhaps you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder there.

Personally, I think humans are far too complex to dismiss as 'the masses'.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That hasn't answered the question, are all of the gasses stopped by the atmospheric barrier or not

They are not stopped, they are resisted.

Let me make it a bit more clear with an analogy.
If you were to drop from the roof onto a trampoline the trampoline would resist your mass but gradually. It creates a massive indentation as your mass pushes into that fabric.
That fabric will immediately try to resist your force of mass until it absorbs it all and then it will react back onto that mass by trying to regain its initial pressure at rest.

The rocket is doing the same with it's thrust and as long as that thrust is consistent the reaction will stay the same, offering an equal resistance to the mass of the rocket and fuel ratio.

To make it even easier, just think what happened if you were to thrust against a body of water. It creates a large indentation depending on thrust strength and as long as that thrust remains consistent, so will the indentation in the water but to create this indentation we know the water has to be pushed aside all around that thrusting fuel.
That water is crushing back with the same force applied it.
If that water was to be pushed up against the rocket thrust the rocket would advance vertically.

In air the rocket works the same way. It pushes the air away and the air crushes back. The reason the rocket advances under full thrust is basically down to rocket mass and fuel ratio.
With each second it's the same thrust but less fuel meaning less mass meaning movement, meaning the rocket can overcome the stacked atmosphere as it ascends.

The so called space vacuum or even extreme low pressure offers nothing for the rocket.

So a rough idea bearing in mind it heats whole continents, I mean you seem to know how most of it works down to fine details...

So 1 mile wide, 100 miles wide, 1000?
Which do you think is closest?

Not sure.

Why are you do unwilling to answer the question?

I think I've answered it. It not suiting you does not mean it's not being answered.

 

[Kevj]

I think I've answered it. It not suiting you does not mean it's not being answered.

Remarkably in the same way that irrefutable facts have been posted many times over. You not believing them, doesn’t mean they are not factual.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Thanks for that. I am certain that your beliefs in the physical world are absolutely wrong but that doesn't really matter.

Interestingly, I think there will be a lot in common between those of us who believe in the spinning globe and yourself regarding some of the things you've outlined above. I'd be surprised if there are any of us who haven't pondered on what our purpose is.

I'd go along with that.

The human ego finds it very difficult to deal with ideas such as there might be no purpose.

I agree with that as well.

Maybe we just exist. It's a big part of why some kind of afterlife is so attractive to so many humans.

Yep. Imagine if we believe we have no real purpose. Imagine people not worried about facing retribution in an afterlife. Lose all of that mindset and you can imagine many people not worrying about what they actually do whilst alive.
Basically losing conscientiousness, scruples, self worth and even empathy, among many issues.

Having said that, I don't agree with everything you've written.

I don't expect you to. It's there to ponder and I understand we all have different takes on stuff.

Most inquisitive minds aren't cast aside as illiterate.

That depends on how the inquisitive mind is construed when used against mainstream ideals.

They are given free reign to find ways to allow us to travel, stay warm, fight disease, etc. even if we're not sure to what purpose.

Who are given free reighn?

Perhaps you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder there.

I may well have. I'm far from perfect and far from nailed on correct. However, I may well be closer than what's believed or I may be as far as away as can be.

The issue is....who knows?

Personally, I think humans are far too complex to dismiss as 'the masses'.

We are mimics. Parroting animals. We follow a herd mentality. We follow a pack leader or a perceived pack leader. We are as complex as most animals and insects....etc.

Remarkably in the same way that irrefutable facts have been posted many times over. You not believing them, doesn’t mean they are not factual.

Me not believing them does not mean they're factual, either.
You mentioning irrefutable facts without proof is simply just that.

 

[Kevj]

Me not believing them does not mean they're factual, either.
You mentioning irrefutable facts without proof is simply just that.

I’m reluctant to repeat what has been repeated many times over in this thread. Facts and proof of facts have been provided. You don’t take them on board. The irony of you being the closed minded one is beyond anything I’ve ever experienced.

 

[fyl2u]

Me not believing them does not mean they're factual, either.

Nobody said this was the reason they were factual.

You mentioning irrefutable facts without proof is simply just that.

He didn't. He mentioned irrefutable facts that many of us have given irrefutable proofs of. You choose not to acknowledge them as such because it'd shatter your fragile little fantasy world.

They're still irrefutable facts with irrefutable proofs though.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I’m reluctant to repeat what has been repeated many times over in this thread. Facts and proof of facts have been provided.

No facts have been provided.
Appeals to authority has been provided.

You don’t take them on board.

I do take them onboard but they go into the fiction cabinet and I still await for the one's to go into the factual cabinet..

The irony of you being the closed minded one is beyond anything I’ve ever experienced.

It depends who's really closed minded. The one telling the other or actually the other.
You may be telling me I'm not watching the road from the kerb whilst you're stood in the middle of that road.

Nukehasslefan said:
You mentioning irrefutable facts without proof is simply just that.

fyl2u said:​

He didn't. He mentioned irrefutable facts that many of us have given irrefutable proofs of.
You choose not to acknowledge them as such because it'd shatter your fragile little fantasy world.
Nukehasslefan said: You have no irrefutable proof's of anything being argued.

​

 

[legend7]

Not sure.

So you don't even know if it's closer to 1 mile wide or 1000 miles, yet you know exactly how it works, what it's made of, how it melts helium on the dome etc, superfluids, reflections.
Bizzare you have literally no idea how big it is, I mean I thought your map showed a representation to "scale" but of course according to you scale doesn't work on certain sizes
How come you know all of these intricate functions and properties yet not something as basic as an appx size.
So it COULD be only 1 mile wide or even the size of a bungalow and explorers and my friend could have got really really close yet just didn't quite stumble across it?