Put a flat earthier into space

[fyl2u]

How does it work?
My experience was, we were taught to regurgitate and it was called a curriculum. Is this not right and if not, what is it we are taught?

As far as science is concerned, they teach you how to be open-minded and unbiased, how to start from absolute fundamentals and be able to prove every formula you ever need to use, how to devise completely neutral unbiased experiments to test your hypotheses, how it doesn't matter whether or not your hypotheses are correct you still learn something: i.e. finding out your hypotheses are wrong is still a scientific achievement - it's still new knowledge.

"My hypothesis is that things work this other way rather than the way we're taught, and so I've devised an honest experiment that will produce results that will EITHER prove the hypothesis to be correct or incorrect."

Taking your water level hypothesis as an example, the thought process taught to us in higher level science classes is like this:

"The established science says that it should curve at approximately 8 inches per mile squared, but my hypothesis is that this curve doesn't exist, therefore I need to devise an experiment that can determine whether or not a curve of 8 inches per mile squared is really there. To do this I need a device capable of measuring whether or not a curve of 8 inches per mile squared is present in whatever container the water is in, so that I can measure the water honestly. If that equipment detects a curve, then the established science was correct, whereas if that equipment does not detect a curve then we can safely and honestly say that the established science was incorrect. Whatever the outcome is, we will have learned whether or not the established science is correct, therefore the experiment is worth doing."

THAT is science done properly and honestly.

The scientist has no skin in the game. It doesn't matter what the outcome is, something is proven: either the established thought is wrong or it's right, but either way you will have gained knowledge through honest experiment.

Scientists don't make their minds up in advance and then refuse to do honest experiments to test the hypothesis against the established knowledge or use "bad faith" experiments that don't really prove anything like the ones you've put forward so far on this thread.

We're all parrots/mimics.

No, we're not.

I actually had to try and figure out what the potential reality may be amid all of the utter bull that's been implanted into my skull from such a young age to present day. I'll never ficgure out the whole truth of life but just thinking outside the box allows me to see a lot of misinfo/disinfo that was battered into our heads.

No true scientist would ever claim to have the "whole truth of life". The best a real scientist would ever offer you is an explanation of the current ways of looking at any particular conundrum, and how it has been tested to come up with that explanation.

To do that, they need to know it and understand it if it's their area of expertise, or if it is a subject they only have a passing knowledge of they'll admit that and give a caveat in their explanation that this is only how they understand it. After all, there's absolutely no shame in admitting that something is outside your personal knowledge due to it not being your area of expertise. Nobody knows everything about everything.

Curved water level suits you better than flat. No problem.

It's not a case of it suiting me, it's a provable fact.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

This is about you searching your own logical mind against what you've been schooled into. If you choose not to do that then nothing said against that schooling will ever appease you and I fully get that.

The only thing you fully get is full of shit. You wouldn't recognise logic if it moved over and around your own dense dome and reflected in terms of differing densities, back to your supposed eyes.
This is not about me doing any such thing, this is all about your nonsense claim that the Earth is not a spinning globe and your total inability to prove it.
However much you try to frame it as the opposite, it is you who has been schooled/fooled, you who needs to be applying logic instead of believing in fantasy stories and you who has constantly 'appealed to (a very dubious) authority' and remained entirely unable to back up any of your own claims with credible evidence. It's not enough to say "I don't need to because I know" when you clearly do not, or "I've done the experiments" when you have not.
You've been given enough over the course of the thread that you could check out for yourself if you were actually searching for the truth rather than confirmation of your own daydream, but it's perfectly clear that you're not.

 

[BigPete]

Aye, the sun shines on this grey cement like surface and lights it up like a beacon from what we see from where we are and yet quite a of of it is not so bright. Why would that be?

This is an experiment you can do on your own.

Get a ball of cement and when you go into the garden at night shine a torch on it from the side.
Record it and let me know if it lights up and reflects the light so you can see it.

Or if it just absorbs it all so you see nothing.

 

[DaveH]

Debunking the spinning globe is easy and has been done.
You and other not accepting this does not mean it hasn't, it just means you don't accept the simple logic of it because you favour the ideal mainstream model. I accept that is the case and have no issue with people doing that.
Like I keep saying, most of us were brought up on it and many many other things that we cannot verify.

This is about you searching your own logical mind against what you've been schooled into. If you choose not to do that then nothing said against that schooling will ever appease you and I fully get that.

Aye, the sun shines on this grey cement like surface and lights it up like a beacon from what we see from where we are and yet quite a of of it is not so bright. Why would that be?
Also why does it only show a spotlight in the pictures of the so called men on the moon when it's lit up like a beacon to us mere minnows on Earth?

If you say they're on a studio set or something then that would make sense for the spotlights.
But seeing as you won't obviously say that then this glowing cement like so called moon is an issue, unless it's a reflection, like a hologram.

Anyone can do the water level experiments at any grade, from a small container or a sink or bath or puddle or pond or swimming pool or a lake...etc. None of this requires me to be part of. This just requires simple logic and the ability to see through utter fictional bull that was offered as factual all through our schooling to present day.
I'm still waiting for someone to confirm a spinning globe. Do you know of anyone that can do it?

I have myself. It doesn't mean it's a real solid object.

What's happened is, we were told the moon was a ball of rocky cement like substance and later when SFX/CGI/staging was in its infancy we were shown some men on it and then when SFX/CGI got better, so did the little set ups for filming and actors.

Yeah, sort of.

What are you explaining?

So that is it confirmed then, that these experiments anyone can do and you have done, are you looking out your windows and saying “that looks flat”. No measurement nothing.

So many pages in this thread and it all comes down to water level as your single proof against a globe and that is an opinion by taking a glance with the naked eye. In terms of proof that is pretty pathetic and I wish that had been really explained at the start.

As for the moon looking bright, you are really asking that? Turn on all the lights at home and stick a candle in the middle of the room, you hardly notice it burning. Turn all the lights off and it seems bright, offering a fair bit of light to the room. Same as the moon being bright against a dark sky, but when it appears in the morning or late afternoon sky it is pale white, almost like a cloud.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

As far as science is concerned, they teach you how to be open-minded and unbiased, how to start from absolute fundamentals and be able to prove every formula you ever need to use, how to devise completely neutral unbiased experiments to test your hypotheses, how it doesn't matter whether or not your hypotheses are correct you still learn something: i.e. finding out your hypotheses are wrong is still a scientific achievement - it's still new knowledge.

Yep, this is the real pursuit of understanding the science of what we are, where we are and what is around us.
The problem is, we're bullied into following many narratives that are told as factual and called scientific theories and yet nobody knows the truth but are more than willing to argue for those narrated stories passed off as factual, because it's the en masse thing to do.

"My hypothesis is that things work this other way rather than the way we're taught, and so I've devised an honest experiment that will produce results that will EITHER prove the hypothesis to be correct or incorrect."

Taking your water level hypothesis as an example, the thought process taught to us in higher level science classes is like this:

"The established science says that it should curve at approximately 8 inches per mile squared, but my hypothesis is that this curve doesn't exist, therefore I need to devise an experiment that can determine whether or not a curve of 8 inches per mile squared is really there. To do this I need a device capable of measuring whether or not a curve of 8 inches per mile squared is present in whatever container the water is in, so that I can measure the water honestly. If that equipment detects a curve, then the established science was correct, whereas if that equipment does not detect a curve then we can safely and honestly say that the established science was incorrect. Whatever the outcome is, we will have learned whether or not the established science is correct, therefore the experiment is worth doing."

THAT is science done properly and honestly.

No, it's not.

The scientist has no skin in the game. It doesn't matter what the outcome is, something is proven: either the established thought is wrong or it's right, but either way you will have gained knowledge through honest experiment.

It depends on what is deemed as knowledge.
If you mean you try to find curvature of water and realise it's not, then you've learned not to trust the bull stories offered for a spinning globe and all the add on's in one fell swoop.

Scientists don't make their minds up in advance and then refuse to do honest experiments to test the hypothesis against the established knowledge or use "bad faith" experiments that don't really prove anything like the ones you've put forward so far on this thread.

It all depends on what's deemed to be real science and who are the real scientists pushing it.
I can stand side by side with you in just our clothing and we can ask each other to prove or disprove a spinning globe.
What do you use from that point?

No true scientist would ever claim to have the "whole truth of life".

Correct, no true scientist would.

The best a real scientist would ever offer you is an explanation of the current ways of looking at any particular conundrum, and how it has been tested to come up with that explanation.

Ok, so you're basically saying we are offered potentials but not truth's...right?

To do that, they need to know it and understand it if it's their area of expertise, or if it is a subject they only have a passing knowledge of they'll admit that and give a caveat in their explanation that this is only how they understand it.

Like black holes and worm holes and quantum entanglement and string theory, plus the big bang coming from nothing....and so on and so on and so on and so on.

After all, there's absolutely no shame in admitting that something is outside your personal knowledge due to it not being your area of expertise.

The near entire Earth is outside of my expertise and I believe it is outside of all people's expertise.
Some may know certain bits and pieces of what they terms , their field of expertise with Earthly things.
You may know how to put elements together to make chemical mixtures or you may know how certain plants thrive or die...etc.

Simple things can be turned into complicated things to the untrained mind but complicated things are a make up of those simple things.

And then you have stories told about complicated things that are cloaked in secrecy and not to be discussed in terms of a break down into simplicity.

All kinds of stuff comes under this, including Earth itself and all the supposed space stuff.

Nobody knows everything about everything.

Nobody ever will. There's not enough living in one person to understand even a point percentage.

It's not a case of it suiting me, it's a provable fact.

Provable facts are backed up with proof. You do not have any.

 

[DaveH]

How does it work?
My experience was, we were taught to regurgitate and it was called a curriculum. Is this not right and if not, what is it we are taught?

We're all parrots/mimics.

I actually had to try and figure out what the potential reality may be amid all of the utter bull that's been implanted into my skull from such a young age to present day. I'll never ficgure out the whole truth of life but just thinking outside the box allows me to see a lot of misinfo/disinfo that was battered into our heads.

Curved water level suits you better than flat. No problem.

• Bruce Willis as Harry S. Stamper.
• Ben Affleck as A.J. Frost.
• Will Patton as Chick.
• Steve Buscemi as Rockhound.
• William Fichtner as Colonel Willie Sharp.
• Owen Wilson as Oscar.
• You must be logged on to see external links
  as Bear
• You must be logged on to see external links
  as Lev Andropov
• You must be logged on to see external links
  as Max
• as Co-Pilot Jennifer Watts
• as General Kimsey
• as Gruber
• as Co-Pilot Tucker
• as Halsey
• There's 14 just from one film.

Pretty big supporting cast just for armageddon and that's just one film.
Think of all the space films over time.

So. There was a big supporting cast for Titanic, does that mean that ships don’t exist?

I find this your most pathetic argument. Films are not real, they have actors and sets. Space travel involves sending real objects into space that have to be built and can be tracked independently by many nations and amateurs. You can go and see rocket launches. The crew behind star wars made props, did cgi etc. There were thousands and thousands of people making real craft and are constantly receiving data back from the things they built.

 

[Roman maroni]

Debunking the spinning globe is easy and has been done.
You and other not accepting this does not mean it hasn't, it just means you don't accept the simple logic of it because you favour the ideal mainstream model. I accept that is the case and have no issue with people doing that.
Like I keep saying, most of us were brought up on it and many many other things that we cannot verify.

This is about you searching your own logical mind against what you've been schooled into. If you choose not to do that then nothing said against that schooling will ever appease you and I fully get that.

Aye, the sun shines on this grey cement like surface and lights it up like a beacon from what we see from where we are and yet quite a of of it is not so bright. Why would that be?
Also why does it only show a spotlight in the pictures of the so called men on the moon when it's lit up like a beacon to us mere minnows on Earth?

If you say they're on a studio set or something then that would make sense for the spotlights.
But seeing as you won't obviously say that then this glowing cement like so called moon is an issue, unless it's a reflection, like a hologram.

Anyone can do the water level experiments at any grade, from a small container or a sink or bath or puddle or pond or swimming pool or a lake...etc. None of this requires me to be part of. This just requires simple logic and the ability to see through utter fictional bull that was offered as factual all through our schooling to present day.
I'm still waiting for someone to confirm a spinning globe. Do you know of anyone that can do it?

I have myself. It doesn't mean it's a real solid object.

What's happened is, we were told the moon was a ball of rocky cement like substance and later when SFX/CGI/staging was in its infancy we were shown some men on it and then when SFX/CGI got better, so did the little set ups for filming and actors.

Yeah, sort of.

What are you explaining?

The globe has never ever been debunked you absolute whopper, you really are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny anymore.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The only thing you fully get is full of shit.

We all generally get that.

You wouldn't recognise logic if it moved over and around your own dense dome and reflected in terms of differing densities, back to your supposed eyes.

In your opinion.

This is not about me doing any such thing, this is all about your nonsense claim that the Earth is not a spinning globe and your total inability to prove it.

It's easily proved. I'm sure you don't want me to repeat the proof...right?
It's your inability to prove a spinning globe which leads you to arguing that I supposedly can't prove it isn't, which you clearly know I can but choose to ignore the obvious due to absolute severe indoctrination. Anddddddddddddddddddddddd, I'm repeating myself.......but.....I was the same and I still am with many things.
The nature of the story tellers of fiction/misdirection, which is passed off as factual.

However much you try to frame it as the opposite, it is you who has been schooled/fooled, you who needs to be applying logic instead of believing in fantasy stories and you who has constantly 'appealed to (a very dubious) authority' and remained entirely unable to back up any of your own claims with credible evidence.

Absolutely. I've been schooled to all hell in my life, just as you have.
It's all about stepping outside of that box, even a little. Some do it better than others.
Some do it faster than others. And some perish within the comfort of it.
It's all about how inquisitive a person is or how subservient a person is willing to become.

It's not enough to say "I don't need to because I know" when you clearly do not, or "I've done the experiments" when you have not.

I clearly have. I know what I know and you can only guess what I know...which is fine.

You've been given enough over the course of the thread that you could check out for yourself if you were actually searching for the truth rather than confirmation of your own daydream, but it's perfectly clear that you're not.

I've been given more than enough over the years with an internet full of the very stuff you and others tell me.
It's all there is detail and yet I'm stronger than ever on my stance of Earth not being a spinning globe.
Surely you don't think a few people on a forum is going to just change my mind back to my severe indoctrination just by back patting each other, do you?

 

[legend7]

Debunking the spinning globe is easy and has been done.
You and other not accepting this does not mean it hasn't, it just means you don't accept the simple logic of it because you favour the ideal mainstream model. I accept that is the case and have no issue with people doing that.
Like I keep saying, most of us were brought up on it and many many other things that we cannot verify.

This is about you searching your own logical mind against what you've been schooled into. If you choose not to do that then nothing said against that schooling will ever appease you and I fully get that.

Aye, the sun shines on this grey cement like surface and lights it up like a beacon from what we see from where we are and yet quite a of of it is not so bright. Why would that be?
Also why does it only show a spotlight in the pictures of the so called men on the moon when it's lit up like a beacon to us mere minnows on Earth?

If you say they're on a studio set or something then that would make sense for the spotlights.
But seeing as you won't obviously say that then this glowing cement like so called moon is an issue, unless it's a reflection, like a hologram.

Anyone can do the water level experiments at any grade, from a small container or a sink or bath or puddle or pond or swimming pool or a lake...etc. None of this requires me to be part of. This just requires simple logic and the ability to see through utter fictional bull that was offered as factual all through our schooling to present day.
I'm still waiting for someone to confirm a spinning globe. Do you know of anyone that can do it?

I have myself. It doesn't mean it's a real solid object.

What's happened is, we were told the moon was a ball of rocky cement like substance and later when SFX/CGI/staging was in its infancy we were shown some men on it and then when SFX/CGI got better, so did the little set ups for filming and actors.

Yeah, sort of.

What are you explaining?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This is an experiment you can do on your own.

Get a ball of cement and when you go into the garden at night shine a torch on it from the side.
Record it and let me know if it lights up and reflects the light so you can see it.

Or if it just absorbs it all so you see nothing.

It doesn't light up like a beacon.

 

[payne]

Yep, this is the real pursuit of understanding the science of what we are, where we are and what is around us.
The problem is, we're bullied into following many narratives that are told as factual and called scientific theories and yet nobody knows the truth but are more than willing to argue for those narrated stories passed off as factual, because it's the en masse thing to do.


No, it's not.


It depends on what is deemed as knowledge.
If you mean you try to find curvature of water and realise it's not, then you've learned not to trust the bull stories offered for a spinning globe and all the add on's in one fell swoop.


It all depends on what's deemed to be real science and who are the real scientists pushing it.
I can stand side by side with you in just our clothing and we can ask each other to prove or disprove a spinning globe.
What do you use from that point?


Correct, no true scientist would.

Ok, so you're basically saying we are offered potentials but not truth's...right?

Like black holes and worm holes and quantum entanglement and string theory, plus the big bang coming from nothing....and so on and so on and so on and so on.

The near entire Earth is outside of my expertise and I believe it is outside of all people's expertise.
Some may know certain bits and pieces of what they terms , their field of expertise with Earthly things.
You may know how to put elements together to make chemical mixtures or you may know how certain plants thrive or die...etc.

Simple things can be turned into complicated things to the untrained mind but complicated things are a make up of those simple things.

And then you have stories told about complicated things that are cloaked in secrecy and not to be discussed in terms of a break down into simplicity.

All kinds of stuff comes under this, including Earth itself and all the supposed space stuff.


Nobody ever will. There's not enough living in one person to understand even a point percentage.

Provable facts are backed up with proof. You do not have any.

amazing. proof that the unreasonable and illogical are alive and well

 

[BigPete]

It doesn't light up like a beacon.

Well you hardly have the power of the sun in your hand, do you?

Does it light up?

 

[payne]

Well you hardly have the power of the sun in your hand, do you?

Does it light up?

no, it's in the centre but we can't get there cos it's too cold.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So that is it confirmed then, that these experiments anyone can do and you have done, are you looking out your windows and saying “that looks flat”. No measurement nothing.

Nope.

So many pages in this thread and it all comes down to water level as your single proof against a globe and that is an opinion by taking a glance with the naked eye.

Nope.

In terms of proof that is pretty pathetic and I wish that had been really explained at the start.

Nice try but it's a weak attempt.

As for the moon looking bright, you are really asking that?

Absiolutely.

Turn on all the lights at home and stick a candle in the middle of the room, you hardly notice it burning. Turn all the lights off and it seems bright, offering a fair bit of light to the room. Same as the moon being bright against a dark sky, but when it appears in the morning or late afternoon sky it is pale white, almost like a cloud.

Ahhhh, ok.
So in this space vacuum it shines like a big beacon with many dark patches within it because the cement like set up is so reflective apart from the bits that are not and show dark patches.
And yet when the so called moon men were stood on it in the same set up, it was dark with a simple spotlight over the area where they stood but pitch black elsewhere...and yet this dull spotlight supposedly gets seen by us on good old Earth as a big lit up beacon.

As for it hardly being seen in our daylight. It should be seen in our day light if it's supposedly 238,000 miles into a vacuum of space if our sky washes out that darkness.

It's all utter nonsense passed off as reality..

 

[BigPete]

bits that are not and show dark patches.

Do you know what a shadow is?

 

[Nobby]

It's all utter nonsense passed off as reality..

Just saying

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So. There was a big supporting cast for Titanic, does that mean that ships don’t exist?

It means they can create all kinds of scenarios, factual or fictional.

I find this your most pathetic argument.

I actually find what you said above to be equally similar.

Films are not real, they have actors and sets.

How do you know they're not real?

Space travel involves sending real objects into space that have to be built and can be tracked independently by many nations and amateurs.

Tracked as in, how?

You can go and see rocket launches.

From how many miles away?
Do you know what they're launching or is the TV your source of info?

The crew behind star wars made props, did cgi etc.

Aye, just like the moon landing crew.

There were thousands and thousands of people making real craft and are constantly receiving data back from the things they built.

Judging by the so called lunar lander I'd say it was a kids' school project. The only real craft was the lesson likely called arts and crafts.

The globe has never ever been debunked you absolute whopper, you really are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny anymore.

It's never been proven by anyone, including you.
Debunking it is the easiest thing.
Guess why?

 

[payne]

Nope.

Nope.

Nice try but it's a weak attempt.

Absiolutely.

Ahhhh, ok.
So in this space vacuum it shines like a big beacon with many dark patches within it because the cement like set up is so reflective apart from the bits that are not and show dark patches.
And yet when the so called moon men were stood on it in the same set up, it was dark with a simple spotlight over the area where they stood but pitch black elsewhere...and yet this dull spotlight supposedly gets seen by us on good old Earth as a big lit up beacon.

As for it hardly being seen in our daylight. It should be seen in our day light if it's supposedly 238,000 miles into a vacuum of space if our sky washes out that darkness.

It's all utter nonsense passed off as reality..

An expert in so many fields. It's amazing that one is able to be so knowledgeable in so many at once whilst experts in one field are thick as fuck.

 

[BigPete]

How do you know they're not real?

Wow...

Better watch out was watching Ghostbusters with the bairn other day..
Slimers going to come through my wall any minute and I thought it wasn't real!

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Well you hardly have the power of the sun in your hand, do you?

Does it light up?

You see the light in the dark sky you believe is a rock like moon. You see it lit up like a beacon.

And then you get treated to stuff like this.

You must be logged on to see external links

Wow...

Better watch out was watching Ghostbusters with the bairn other day..
Slimers going to come through my wall any minute and I thought it wasn't real!

Many people believe in ghosts.
Many people believe in demons.

Many people won't watch ghost films. Why?