Put a flat earthier into space

[Kevj]

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


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..

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.

The fundamental principles which are used to confirm these facts beyond doubt are used daily by thousands of scientists and engineers, me included.
I have tried (in vain as it happens) to guide you through this process weeks ago. The frustrating thing is rather than open your mind and replicate some of the more basic tests, you do exactly what you’ve done in this post. It means you don’t have to concede defeat. It’s a scam and a shite one at that.

 

[legend7]

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.

I think we all know the answer to this one, no need to explain this bit further

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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?

Do you know what's at the centre of your Earth globe?
Whatever it is, do you know the size?

Do you know the size of your so called sun?
How do you know this?

Let's play your way.

 

[DJP]

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


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..

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.

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.

​

I'm surprised you haven't got David Icke as your profile pic, or maybe a picture of some fruits in a loop.

 

[legend7]

Do you know what's at the centre of your Earth globe?
Whatever it is, do you know the size?

Do you know the size of your so called sun?
How do you know this?

Let's play your way.

You're the one trying to show us how you're correct and everyone else in the world is wrong.
So are you going to answer or further deflect?
We know these sizes through people doing experiments and research.
I'll await your answers on your model?

 

[fyl2u]

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


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..

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.

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.

​

Liar.

You're by far the biggest liar I've ever conversed with.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You're the one trying to show us how you're correct and everyone else in the world is wrong.

I've never said I was correct on my stuff. You've been told this time and time again.

So are you going to answer or further deflect?

There's no deflecting. I've told you I don't know how big the central energy is.

We know these sizes through people doing experiments and research.

How?

I'll await your answers on your model?

You have your answers. You not liking them is not my issue.

Liar.

You're by far the biggest liar I've ever conversed with.

No problem.

 

[legend7]

I've never said I was correct on my stuff. You've been told this time and time again.

There's no deflecting. I've told you I don't know how big the central energy is.

How?

You have your answers. You not liking them is not my issue.

No problem.

So if you don't even have the most basic and rough idea of size how do you know it's made of magic crystals that beam a sun onto an ever melting helium dome?
Or even where it is?
Even you can see these major flaws in your argument?

 

[Nobby]

In air the rocket works the same way. It pushes the air away and the air crushes back

So with a jet aircraft (the principles of jet and rocket flight are the same only the engine is different) if the air is pushing back why doesn't it stall out the engine, why doesn't it foul the flight control surfaces, why don't aircraft designers make aircraft aerodynamic for the air flow from the rear.

If the atomospheric barrier pushes the thrust back why do aircraft carriers have jet blast deflectors to stop the jet blast blowing people and objects overboard?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So if you don't even have the most basic and rough idea of size how do you know it's made of magic crystals that beam a sun onto an ever melting helium dome?

It makes sense based on what I see happening within Earth.

Or even where it is?

The centre.

Even you can see these major flaws in your argument?

There may well be but you cannot prove there are any major flaws by using the global model you adhere to...without proof.
You cast what I say, aside because it doesn't fit the ideal model explanations you were given.

 

[Kevj]

So with a jet aircraft (the principles of jet and rocket flight are the same only the engine is different) if the air is pushing back why doesn't it stall out the engine, why doesn't it foul the flight control surfaces, why don't aircraft designers make aircraft aerodynamic for the air flow from the rear.

If the atomospheric barrier pushes the thrust back why do aircraft carriers have jet blast deflectors to stop the jet blast blowing people and objects overboard?

Let’s not introduce the effects of resistance in front of the rocket/ aeroplane. Thrust in the atmosphere needs to compensate for this. Thrust in space doesn’t as there isn’t any. But let’s take baby steps.

 

[legend7]

It makes sense based on what I see happening within Earth.


The centre.

There may well be but you cannot prove there are any major flaws by using the global model you adhere to...without proof.
You cast what I say, aside because it doesn't fit the ideal model explanations you were given.

You know if you'd said I don't believe the world is a globe for x y z reasons but that you couldn't really give an alternative, then I'd have understood that (albeit its batshit crazy)
The fact you have all of these very complex solutions involving superfluids and carbon arcs yet don't know if the centre generator is 1 mile wide or 1000 miles wide just proves you're just making shit up in your own head.
You have zero evidence of anything (as you admit) yet argue for it all

 

[What A Waster]

The centre.

Is the centre closer to Kenya or Canada?

 

[legend7]

It

Is the centre closer to Kenya or Canada?

It's all a matter of scale

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Nukehasslefan said:

In air the rocket works the same way. It pushes the air away and the air crushes back

Nobby said:​

So with a jet aircraft (the principles of jet and rocket flight are the same only the engine is different) if the air is pushing back why doesn't it stall out the engine, why doesn't it foul the flight control surfaces, why don't aircraft designers make aircraft aerodynamic for the air flow from the rear.

Your jet engine takes in air by burning fuel. It means there's an inlet and an outlet. No need for contained air.
A rocket contains it's oxygen under pressure with the mix into the fuel to create an immediate thrust against atmosphere and pushing it away in that set up.

Nobby said:​

If the atmospheric barrier pushes the thrust back why do aircraft carriers have jet blast deflectors to stop the jet blast blowing people and objects overboard?

Nukehasslefan said:The thrust from the jet is due to intake of air and fuel mixed and thrown out the back at a high pressure which is focused on area behind. Anyone within that area gets thrown back.
By deflecting it you take away the thrust into that area and spread it outwards to the sides which still creates the crush back by the atmosphere back onto the thrusting burn expansion of that atmosphere.

The burn itself does nothing to propel the craft if there's no medium (atmosphere) to be expanded into and compressed to then expand right back to the craft burn.

Take away the atmosphere and you take away the thrust.

You know if you'd said I don't believe the world is a globe for x y z reasons but that you couldn't really give an alternative, then I'd have understood that (albeit its batshit crazy)
The fact you have all of these very complex solutions involving superfluids and carbon arcs yet don't know if the centre generator is 1 mile wide or 1000 miles wide just proves you're just making shit up in your own head.
You have zero evidence of anything (as you admit) yet argue for it all

Fine. You go with what you feel best. I'm ok with whatever you want to think about what I say.

 

[nahwee]

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

He never posts any of his ‘experiments’, he can’t, he hasn’t done any. He’s telling porkies.

 

[legend7]

He never posts any of his ‘experiments’, he can’t, he hasn’t done any. He’s telling porkies.

Ahh I know that, as I said, he should be a fiction author

It makes sense based on what I see happening within Earth.

Please explain what you see happening within earth that means we have a crystal generator (why crystals?)
Why is the dome some melting helium supercarbon?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ahh I know that, as I said, he should be a fiction author

Please explain what you see happening within earth that means we have a crystal generator (why crystals?)
Why is the dome some melting helium supercarbon?

Tell me what's in the centre of your Earth and how you're sure of it.

 

[Kevj]

Tell me what's in the centre of your Earth and how you're sure of it.

It’s an iron core with impurities. We know this because or relative density and testing using sound waves. This has been retested and the results confirmed to correlate within an acceptable tolerance. Again, the fundamental science sitting behind this works for samples much smaller where irrefutable proof is achieved via testing. The same results are witnessed via testing on a much larger scale.

The only way everything in this world works is if all of the science correlates. Otherwise it’s speculation or supposition. As per your theories. They exist but you are unable to provide substantiation.
Where substantiation is provided by others, you chose to ignore it in full. Not once have you opened your mind to an alternative view.

 

[Nobby]

Nobby said:​

So with a jet aircraft (the principles of jet and rocket flight are the same only the engine is different) if the air is pushing back why doesn't it stall out the engine, why doesn't it foul the flight control surfaces, why don't aircraft designers make aircraft aerodynamic for the air flow from the rear.

Your jet engine takes in air by burning fuel. It means there's an inlet and an outlet. No need for contained air.
A rocket contains it's oxygen under pressure with the mix into the fuel to create an immediate thrust against atmosphere and pushing it away in that set up.

Nobby said:​

If the atmospheric barrier pushes the thrust back why do aircraft carriers have jet blast deflectors to stop the jet blast blowing people and objects overboard?

Nukehasslefan said:The thrust from the jet is due to intake of air and fuel mixed and thrown out the back at a high pressure which is focused on area behind. Anyone within that area gets thrown back.
By deflecting it you take away the thrust into that area and spread it outwards to the sides which still creates the crush back by the atmosphere back onto the thrusting burn expansion of that atmosphere.

The burn itself does nothing to propel the craft if there's no medium (atmosphere) to be expanded into and compressed to then expand right back to the craft burn.

Take away the atmosphere and you take away the thrust.

None of that addressed my question about why the air pushing back doesn't impact on airframe and engines or why jet blast behind the aircraft can be felt, it isn't restrained by your so called atmospheric barrier