Put a flat earthier into space

[DPTT]

In the story, yes.
Flash Gordon works, for the story.
Star trek works, for the story.
Star wars works, for the story.
Armageddon works, for the story.
Nanny McPhee works for the story.
Harry potter works for the story.


And so on.

And yet we are yet to find the story which works for your flat earth

Just water level against the globe.

100% meaningful against a spinning globe.

And you’ve yet to fully explain this experiment so we can reproduce it and verify your theory

 

[DaveH]

We can all “think outside of the box” and dream up elaborate shit to how we would like the world to look like.

Difference is to 99.9% of the population we also know what the world “really” is like and don’t go spouting our fantasies out as the truth.

I mean fancy saying there is a gid big massive hole in the ground where the sun comes out of and not one person in the history of the human race has mentioned it

I think this phrase 'think outside the box' often gets mistaken for fantasy and seen as a good thing when it goes to the extreme.

Someone who thinks outside the box are usual the ones who come up with novel solutions to problems, they approach things from a different way but considering facts and reality. In my field I often find people come up with ways to solve problems with things nobody else thought of, but the key thing is that bit about being grounded in reality. Outside the box but with constraints.

Others see thinking outside the box as a good thing when it has no grounding on reality. Einstein thought outside the box with his theory of relativity and it blew the world of physics away. It was novel, completely different thinking but provided a rational explanation for how the universe could work and the things that could not be proven at the time seemed theoretically possible, the maths added up and even just on this page is a link showing how some of the things that could not be proven then are being proved now.

Sniffing glue and coming up with bat shit crazy ideas that have no sound basis as to why, can not be proved in any way and can actually be disproved, that is not thinking outside the box. That is just a mental fantasy. Like, why projection crystals? Why a super carbon arc (what the hell is that anyway)? Dreamed up from nowhere and no reason why it might be true. That is not outside the box thinking, that is 100% fantasy.

I remember an interview I once had where we were doing group work with other candidates. We were given a group problem of we are a management board who have sent a research team into a remote forest which is on fire. The fire will reach their camp in 30 minutes. We have one helicopter with a round trip time of 15 minutes and can only carry one person and the problem said "there are no other helicopters available". We were presented with the profiles of the team. Basically you can save 2 perhaps 3 people, what do you do. Straight away a smarmy twat who had been pissing me off all day said "Well we should see if we can source another helicopter or bring the army in, lets tell them we are doing that, not pick who survives". He then put on a big smug style and proudly said to the interview panel person who was observing our group "I'm thinking outside the box". My response to him was "The problem has said there are no other resources available, if we send this back saying we wish there was, we fail this task having achieved nothing. The only boxes we should be thinking about are the ones our researches crispy remains are going home in". Instantly regretted it because it was an arsey response for an interview and not very professional. It was that one moment that got me the job.

The moral of the story is, there are out the box thinkers and there are people who are just wankers.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

You see them as what you're told they are.

I can see globes orbiting the sun. They could tell me they're called Blobfish but it makes no difference, I can still see them whatever it is I'm told they are called.

Yes they can be further away depending on where you're stood and where they move over and around that dome.
Just like your bright sun or moon...etc. Or even a plane and so on and so on.

No, you spectacularly miss the point yet again due to not understanding what you're talking about.
The apparent motion of the Sun and the slightly different apparent motion of the stars is perfectly consistent with them being observed from a rotating globe which is orbiting the Sun while the stars are massively more distant. You cannot recreate the same effect on your imaginary dome without doing a shitload of the 'adding bits on to make stuff fit' bollocks you like to accuse science of doing.

"We CAN look at what's presented and check it out for ourselves before we accept or reject it."

No you can't. Not with this stuff. You can look at the story and say it fits what you observe but it means nothing as a proof to you, yet you can accept it as that based on your faith in that schooled model.

You're in no position to say what we can and can not do.
I can look at religion and decide if I think it makes any sense or has any supporting evidence. I can look at what we're told the Earth and Solar system is and decide if it fits with what I can see for myself. I can tell the difference between something faith based and something that can be tested and verified, demonstrated and repeated.

I have to keep reiterating this. I don't offer my stuff for my model as factual. I'm not asking or trying to force anyone to follow my mindset.

Not offering your non-globe stuff as fact, but it's 100% not a globe right? Behave man. You know as well as everyone following this you're claiming that as a fact and that's why people keep telling you you're wrong.

People ask my questions and I answer.

So answer the questions as to what experiments prove the Earth is not a spinning globe.
Answer the questions as to which ones you have done and how.

"I already did but they were waved away" So give the post number where you gave the details.

Nope. I've never been certain on anything I've offered for my model.

"I know it and believe I know it."
Sounds pretty certain to me, and I think the % you used the other day was 100
"100% meaningful against a spinning globe."
Oh look, there's that number again

Carry on saying it if it makes you feel better but you're getting nowhere doing it, unless it pacifies you to keep on doing it. If so, I say, fair enough...go for it for as long as you wish.

Is this "if it makes you feel better" and "unless it pacifies you" stuff some sort of attempt to annoy or insult people? Because it really only makes you look you want to stop that line of questioning and back away.

There's no backing away.

So front up and show us your experiments.

Religion is not the same as science but you keep using it as such.
Fiction and/or science fiction is not the same as science.
They are not the same and the fact that a lot of people choose to believe in a God does not mean that others are unable to tell fact from fiction.

 

[BigPete]

Woah, woah, woah.... I know people who have done both but still don't believe that everyone since 2000 years ago is in on a massive conspiracy to point and snigger at one weirdo just for the crack.

Even when had DMT didn't come up with that shit.

In fact I flew past all the planets through space and met aliens

 

[What A Waster]

Just water level against the globe.

100% meaningful against a spinning globe.

You said earth is 100% not a spinning globe. That seems like certainty.

 

[DaveH]

Why do those in power do the things they do? Unless you think they don't tell lies...at all. If you don;t then I'm not going to get anywhere answering that question.


How does Hollywood persuade people to become involved in a lie.

That depends on how you see your world and the people in it.

You still think there is a difference between a team of people making a film and a team of people apparently faking a space mission. That is so bloody stupid I can't begin to explain the differences to you. It is like trying to explain the difference between a carrot and a day trip to Whitby.

But, again you deflected the question and answered with another question. You claim to be this out the box free thinker who has broken free of the chains of peer pressure and appealing to authority but seem to struggle to answer anything. Like why would most of the world governments lie about this and why would they fake the missions?

Then there is the question how? How can you have that many people involved and either pull the wool over their eyes so they think they really have sent equipment they designed up in to space and are getting readings back, or how to you persuade them to follow a career in spreading lies and making up shit rather than doing something productive?


You also missed my question asking you to explain your experiment to prove that water is flat. Is it putting a spirit level on water surface or something else?

 

[DPTT]

You still think there is a difference between a team of people making a film and a team of people apparently faking a space mission. That is so bloody stupid I can't begin to explain the differences to you. It is like trying to explain the difference between a carrot and a day trip to Whitby.

But, again you deflected the question and answered with another question. You claim to be this out the box free thinker who has broken free of the chains of peer pressure and appealing to authority but seem to struggle to answer anything. Like why would most of the world governments lie about this and why would they fake the missions?

Then there is the question how? How can you have that many people involved and either pull the wool over their eyes so they think they really have sent equipment they designed up in to space and are getting readings back, or how to you persuade them to follow a career in spreading lies and making up shit rather than doing something productive?


You also missed my question asking you to explain your experiment to prove that water is flat. Is it putting a spirit level on water surface or something else?

Where are the “real” scientists based

You know the ones who actually get everything to work on a flat earth and still have time to make up fake science so fake scientists can push this narrative onto us idiots

 

[BigPete]

We also have fireflies on earth. Do you believe they're only as small as we're shown, or do you think there may be much larger ones?
I'll let you ponder that for a while.

 

[What A Waster]

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/search/429232/?q=100%25&t=post&c[thread]=1555767&c[users]=Nukehasslefan&o=relevance

No certainties.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And you have established this by looking at water level.

Nope, many things but water level nails it. The rest are just add on's that simply offer the thinker more reasons to see the spinning globe for what it is, which is fiction.

The degree of curvature on the scale you use would be fractions if a millimetre, but you have established it as a fact without using sensitive measuring equipment as you don't see the need.

It matters not. What matters in the so called entirety of your globe narrative. Even if it was a trillion miles in circumference it would still be a spherical narrative and still a curvature into the so called sphere.
Water level is simply that. Kills it stone dead.

Not the most robust proof

For you, I agree.

 

[What A Waster]

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/search/429237/?q=Certain&t=post&c[thread]=1555767&c[users]=Nukehasslefan&o=relevance

No certainties.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I can see globes orbiting the sun. They could tell me they're called Blobfish but it makes no difference, I can still see them whatever it is I'm told they are called.

Agreed. You believe what you're told and fair enough.

The apparent motion of the Sun and the slightly different apparent motion of the stars is perfectly consistent with them being observed from a rotating globe which is orbiting the Sun while the stars are massively more distant. You cannot recreate the same effect on your imaginary dome without doing a shitload of the 'adding bits on to make stuff fit' bollocks you like to accuse science of doing.

the distance is what you've been told and you think that works on a spinning globe based on that...nothing else.

You're in no position to say what we can and can not do.

I'm not interested in what you can or can't do.

I can look at religion and decide if I think it makes any sense or has any supporting evidence.

Absolutely.

I can look at what we're told the Earth and Solar system is and decide if it fits with what I can see for myself.

Absolutely.

I can tell the difference between something faith based and something that can be tested and verified, demonstrated and repeated.

If it can be tested and verified to be a fact then I also agree.
You have neither for religion nor a spinning globe and this is the argument.

Not offering your non-globe stuff as fact, but it's 100% not a globe right?

Absolutely not a spinning globe we supposedly walk/sail upon.

Behave man. You know as well as everyone following this you're claiming that as a fact and that's why people keep telling you you're wrong.

Water level.

So answer the questions as to what experiments prove the Earth is not a spinning globe.

I have for what I need to answer.

Answer the questions as to which ones you have done and how.

I have with some and have no need to offer anything else until you offer some proof of your spinning globe.

They are not the same and the fact that a lot of people choose to believe in a God does not mean that others are unable to tell fact from fiction.

How many people believe in a god? A rough estimate will do.

You said earth is 100% not a spinning globe. That seems like certainty.

It is.

 

[Nobby]

Water level is simply that. Kills it stone dead

It would if you could prove it, but you can't

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You still think there is a difference between a team of people making a film and a team of people apparently faking a space mission.

No. I think it's similar set up.

That is so bloody stupid I can't begin to explain the differences to you. It is like trying to explain the difference between a carrot and a day trip to Whitby.

I'm sure you can try.

But, again you deflected the question and answered with another question. You claim to be this out the box free thinker who has broken free of the chains of peer pressure and appealing to authority but seem to struggle to answer anything.

I think I've done fantastic at answering.
What you think of that as an answer, is your own issue.

Like why would most of the world governments lie about this and why would they fake the missions?

They won't to you, if you think none of them lie.

Then there is the question how? How can you have that many people involved and either pull the wool over their eyes so they think they really have sent equipment they designed up in to space and are getting readings back, or how to you persuade them to follow a career in spreading lies and making up shit rather than doing something productive?

Why do actors and actresses bother to act out fiction?

You also missed my question asking you to explain your experiment to prove that water is flat.

I offered plenty.

Is it putting a spirit level on water surface or something else?

That's one thing but there's many others.

 

[What A Waster]

No. I think it's similar set up.

I'm sure you can try.

I think I've done fantastic at answering.
What you think of that as an answer, is your own issue.

They won't to you, if you think none of them lie.


Why do actors and actresses bother to act out fiction?



I offered plenty.

That's one thing but there's many others.

So if it was to curve at 8 inches over a mile, what would be the curve along the 4 feet of your spirit level?

 

[DPTT]

So if it was to curve at 8 inches over a mile, what would be the curve along the 4 feet of your spirit level?

For someone who’s only arguement for a flat earth is water level he’s so far refused every request to answer this.

Wonder why

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Agreed. You believe what you're told and fair enough.,

No, not agreed at all. There's a big difference between a. being told something and believing it on faith, and b. seeing something, being told what it is and deciding for yourself if it makes sense.

the distance is what you've been told and you think that works on a spinning globe based on that...nothing else.

No, it's all factual stuff you could check for yourself. I can observe parallax. I don't need to be told what parallax is in order to observe it nor to understand it.

I'm not interested in what you can or can't do.

Except when it suits you to tell me I cant do it, which is what I replied to.

If it can be tested and verified to be a fact then I also agree.
You have neither for religion nor a spinning globe and this is the argument.

Only in your opinion. Until you start doing tests to verify stuff you will never know.

Absolutely not a spinning globe we supposedly walk/sail upon.

Water level.

There's the 100% facts you absolutely do not offer as facts right?

I have for what I need to answer.

I have with some and have no need to offer anything else until you offer some proof of your spinning globe.

You have not and you know it. You've shown us no experiments because there are no experiments to show.
Yet again, you have been shown enough stuff over the months that if you had any intention of seeking truth, you could look at, test, and see for yourself.

How many people believe in a god? A rough estimate will do.

More than one, what's your totally irrelevant point?

 

[taipeisafc]

For someone who’s only arguement for a flat earth is water level he’s so far refused every request to answer this.

Wonder why

I asked him this hundreds of pages ago i even worked out the curve in a bath and asked if he was capable of perceiving the curve, you can guess the response

 

[ned_werby]

Nope, many things but water level nails it. The rest are just add on's that simply offer the thinker more reasons to see the spinning globe for what it is, which is fiction.

It matters not. What matters in the so called entirety of your globe narrative. Even if it was a trillion miles in circumference it would still be a spherical narrative and still a curvature into the so called sphere.
Water level is simply that. Kills it stone dead.

For you, I agree.

"Water level" is your favourite lie.

 

[DPTT]

I asked him this hundreds of pages ago i even worked out the curve in a bath and asked if he was capable of perceiving the curve, you can guess the response

Think I quoted what you did and he ignored that as well.
Think he came back stating religion or summit