• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


The Snockerty Friddle said:
Yes but if you do it in the middle of the ocean you'd see horizon all around, and horizons don't exist, and you'd see ships disappear over the curve in all directions which is inconvenient. Stay on dry land and look through a window. Why use 360 degrees when a fraction of one is available?
Click to expand...
An unhindered view. What a wonderful thing.
 
Taking the dog for a walk in a bit. He'll be on his lead so not unhindered, but that will make his mood flatter.
If I let him off his lead he will be unhindered and he will not be as flat.

Scientific proof my dog is not made of water
 
payne said:
Why is the sun at such a low angle from our perspective this time of year. Does the Dome tilt more in winter?
Click to expand...
Perspective apparently and that is why the sun apparently sets because it gets further and further away so appears lower until eventually light just can't be arsed reaching us and it gets dark. The stars come out and that light can be arsed because of erm erm.

Though anyone who has ever watched a sunrise or sunset will have seen the sun (or moon for that matter) doesn't appear to get smaller you see a clear line where it disappears over the horizon, consistent with the earth rotating away from the sun and inconsistent with distance, perspective and thick atmosphere.

For example here:
Logon or register to see this image

The classical African sunset over the large flat plains. The bottom half of the sun is too far away and the atmosphere is too thick/too much perspective so it disappears? Or the earth has rotated away and it dips beyond the horizon?

I'm expecting stacked atmosphere to be the answer but for such a dramatic effect half way up the sun, that would have to be an absolutely massive difference in density. Which then leads to the questions of why do the two layers never mix, what keeps them separated and why has such a massive change in pressure never been documented where it is on such a clear layer line? The answer of course it because it is a load of bollocks.

Almost every explanation by the conspiracy loons does not match up to real life evidence. Sounds ok as a quick handwavey statement but look at the details (they hate details) just slightly and it all falls apart.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
No.

Keep waiting.

I can't see how anyone could reach them to report anything.
Click to expand...
So you have no evidence and haven't done any experiments.
Fair enough.
DaveH said:
Perspective apparently and that is why the sun apparently sets because it gets further and further away so appears lower until eventually light just can't be arsed reaching us and it gets dark. The stars come out and that light can be arsed because of erm erm.

Though anyone who has ever watched a sunrise or sunset will have seen the sun (or moon for that matter) doesn't appear to get smaller you see a clear line where it disappears over the horizon, consistent with the earth rotating away from the sun and inconsistent with distance, perspective and thick atmosphere.

For example here:
Logon or register to see this image

The classical African sunset over the large flat plains. The bottom half of the sun is too far away and the atmosphere is too thick/too much perspective so it disappears? Or the earth has rotated away and it dips beyond the horizon?

I'm expecting stacked atmosphere to be the answer but for such a dramatic effect half way up the sun, that would have to be an absolutely massive difference in density. Which then leads to the questions of why do the two layers never mix, what keeps them separated and why has such a massive change in pressure never been documented where it is on such a clear layer line? The answer of course it because it is a load of bollocks.

Almost every explanation by the conspiracy loons does not match up to real life evidence. Sounds ok as a quick handwavey statement but look at the details (they hate details) just slightly and it all falls apart.
Click to expand...
And if that is being beamed from the central generator so low, how come nothing gets in the way?
And if the centre is soooo high what about this gradual slope/no gradual slope/flat earth/its not flat/super deep seas 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤔🤔🤪🤪
 
Last edited:
legend7 said:
And if that is being beamed from the central generator so low, how come nothing gets in the way?
And if the centre is soooo high what about this gradual slope/no gradual slope/flat earth/its not flat/super deep seas 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤔🤔🤪🤪
Click to expand...
and why does the supposed reflection of the so-called sun never do this?
Logon or register to see this image

as it would, unless the dome moves with each one of us so that we're always at the centre of our own personal dome...
 
legend7 said:
So you have no evidence and haven't done any experiments.
Fair enough.

And if that is being beamed from the central generator so low, how come nothing gets in the way?
And if the centre is soooo high what about this gradual slope/no gradual slope/flat earth/its not flat/super deep seas 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤔🤔🤪🤪
Click to expand...
That line of thought gets more interesting the further you take it.

To project an image of the sun it has two be one of two things:
1) A massive site projecting the beam as parallel lines, so what we see in the sky (accounting for distance) is the same size as the projection site.
2) The projection is the traditional conical beam that you get from most projectors.

As distances and sizes of land mass in the arctic circle are well known and regularly travelled, we can rule out 1. There just isn't space to hide such a large projection hole.

Now if you take a cone standing on end with the point straight down and take a horizontal cross section, you get a circle. But if you take a diagonal cross section you get an ellipse. Projecting a cone of light onto a curved dome creates a diagonal cross section and should give an elliptical image. The size and shape of this ellipse will vary depending on what section of the dome it shines on.

If you wanted to project a perfect circle onto a dome, you can manipulate the source image to counter for this, and it as what they do for imax screens to offer that 3d effect without having crazy warped images.

What does this mean for our snow globe, lemon squeezer earth? The central projection crystal must change what it is doing, as it rotates in order to constantly give the appearance of a perfect circle on the dome. Coincidently this makes us think that we are in orbit of a large globe.

Now lets not forget that there are parts of the world (between the two tropics) where the sun will appear directly over head at midday (depending on the time of year for each location), and no shadow is formed. Only completely vertical light will do this. This effect is completely consistent with a spinning globe in orbit of the sun and having an axial tilt of 23 degrees (as can be demonstrated with ease with a mechanical model). Something in our crystal centre is making this happen as you can not shine light from underneath the middle of a parabolic done and have it bounce back down elsewhere vertically (as demonstrated a few weeks ago).

This means that our crystal central has a morphing crystal in the middle that rotates shining the sun on different parts of the dome in a way that appears circular all the time - it adapts to compensate. It projects on a daily path which gives each location on the earth the appearance of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but also changing the path it travels each day to be lower or higher in the sky on a repeating yearly cycle. Meanwhile this light that reflects down from the dome bends on a 100% predictable path to end up completely vertical at certain times of year. Different weather conditions that alter the density of the atmosphere do not appear to affect this phenomena, which rules out refraction through an atmospheric stack.

When you look at this critically, work it out yourself and don't just follow what you are told, you find it makes no sense what so ever. It can not function without a whole lot of fudges and none of this can be explained by maths, physics or recreated with computer or mechanical models. That is why there is absolutely zero proof of any of the above being real.

It makes it all fairly unlikely doesn't it?
 
DaveH said:
That line of thought gets more interesting the further you take it.

To project an image of the sun it has two be one of two things:
1) A massive site projecting the beam as parallel lines, so what we see in the sky (accounting for distance) is the same size as the projection site.
2) The projection is the traditional conical beam that you get from most projectors.

As distances and sizes of land mass in the arctic circle are well known and regularly travelled, we can rule out 1. There just isn't space to hide such a large projection hole.

Now if you take a cone standing on end with the point straight down and take a horizontal cross section, you get a circle. But if you take a diagonal cross section you get an ellipse. Projecting a cone of light onto a curved dome creates a diagonal cross section and should give an elliptical image. The size and shape of this ellipse will vary depending on what section of the dome it shines on.

If you wanted to project a perfect circle onto a dome, you can manipulate the source image to counter for this, and it as what they do for imax screens to offer that 3d effect without having crazy warped images.

What does this mean for our snow globe, lemon squeezer earth? The central projection crystal must change what it is doing, as it rotates in order to constantly give the appearance of a perfect circle on the dome. Coincidently this makes us think that we are in orbit of a large globe.

Now lets not forget that there are parts of the world (between the two tropics) where the sun will appear directly over head at midday (depending on the time of year for each location), and no shadow is formed. Only completely vertical light will do this. This effect is completely consistent with a spinning globe in orbit of the sun and having an axial tilt of 23 degrees (as can be demonstrated with ease with a mechanical model). Something in our crystal centre is making this happen as you can not shine light from underneath the middle of a parabolic done and have it bounce back down elsewhere vertically (as demonstrated a few weeks ago).

This means that our crystal central has a morphing crystal in the middle that rotates shining the sun on different parts of the dome in a way that appears circular all the time - it adapts to compensate. It projects on a daily path which gives each location on the earth the appearance of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but also changing the path it travels each day to be lower or higher in the sky on a repeating yearly cycle. Meanwhile this light that reflects down from the dome bends on a 100% predictable path to end up completely vertical at certain times of year. Different weather conditions that alter the density of the atmosphere do not appear to affect this phenomena, which rules out refraction through an atmospheric stack.

When you look at this critically, work it out yourself and don't just follow what you are told, you find it makes no sense what so ever. It can not function without a whole lot of fudges and none of this can be explained by maths, physics or recreated with computer or mechanical models. That is why there is absolutely zero proof of any of the above being real.

It makes it all fairly unlikely doesn't it?
Click to expand...
No
 
DaveH said:
That line of thought gets more interesting the further you take it.

To project an image of the sun it has two be one of two things:
1) A massive site projecting the beam as parallel lines, so what we see in the sky (accounting for distance) is the same size as the projection site.
2) The projection is the traditional conical beam that you get from most projectors.

As distances and sizes of land mass in the arctic circle are well known and regularly travelled, we can rule out 1. There just isn't space to hide such a large projection hole.

Now if you take a cone standing on end with the point straight down and take a horizontal cross section, you get a circle. But if you take a diagonal cross section you get an ellipse. Projecting a cone of light onto a curved dome creates a diagonal cross section and should give an elliptical image. The size and shape of this ellipse will vary depending on what section of the dome it shines on.

If you wanted to project a perfect circle onto a dome, you can manipulate the source image to counter for this, and it as what they do for imax screens to offer that 3d effect without having crazy warped images.

What does this mean for our snow globe, lemon squeezer earth? The central projection crystal must change what it is doing, as it rotates in order to constantly give the appearance of a perfect circle on the dome. Coincidently this makes us think that we are in orbit of a large globe.

Now lets not forget that there are parts of the world (between the two tropics) where the sun will appear directly over head at midday (depending on the time of year for each location), and no shadow is formed. Only completely vertical light will do this. This effect is completely consistent with a spinning globe in orbit of the sun and having an axial tilt of 23 degrees (as can be demonstrated with ease with a mechanical model). Something in our crystal centre is making this happen as you can not shine light from underneath the middle of a parabolic done and have it bounce back down elsewhere vertically (as demonstrated a few weeks ago).

This means that our crystal central has a morphing crystal in the middle that rotates shining the sun on different parts of the dome in a way that appears circular all the time - it adapts to compensate. It projects on a daily path which gives each location on the earth the appearance of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but also changing the path it travels each day to be lower or higher in the sky on a repeating yearly cycle. Meanwhile this light that reflects down from the dome bends on a 100% predictable path to end up completely vertical at certain times of year. Different weather conditions that alter the density of the atmosphere do not appear to affect this phenomena, which rules out refraction through an atmospheric stack.

When you look at this critically, work it out yourself and don't just follow what you are told, you find it makes no sense what so ever. It can not function without a whole lot of fudges and none of this can be explained by maths, physics or recreated with computer or mechanical models. That is why there is absolutely zero proof of any of the above being real.

It makes it all fairly unlikely doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Water level
 
DaveH said:
That line of thought gets more interesting the further you take it.

To project an image of the sun it has two be one of two things:
1) A massive site projecting the beam as parallel lines, so what we see in the sky (accounting for distance) is the same size as the projection site.
2) The projection is the traditional conical beam that you get from most projectors.

As distances and sizes of land mass in the arctic circle are well known and regularly travelled, we can rule out 1. There just isn't space to hide such a large projection hole.

Now if you take a cone standing on end with the point straight down and take a horizontal cross section, you get a circle. But if you take a diagonal cross section you get an ellipse. Projecting a cone of light onto a curved dome creates a diagonal cross section and should give an elliptical image. The size and shape of this ellipse will vary depending on what section of the dome it shines on.

If you wanted to project a perfect circle onto a dome, you can manipulate the source image to counter for this, and it as what they do for imax screens to offer that 3d effect without having crazy warped images.

What does this mean for our snow globe, lemon squeezer earth? The central projection crystal must change what it is doing, as it rotates in order to constantly give the appearance of a perfect circle on the dome. Coincidently this makes us think that we are in orbit of a large globe.

Now lets not forget that there are parts of the world (between the two tropics) where the sun will appear directly over head at midday (depending on the time of year for each location), and no shadow is formed. Only completely vertical light will do this. This effect is completely consistent with a spinning globe in orbit of the sun and having an axial tilt of 23 degrees (as can be demonstrated with ease with a mechanical model). Something in our crystal centre is making this happen as you can not shine light from underneath the middle of a parabolic done and have it bounce back down elsewhere vertically (as demonstrated a few weeks ago).

This means that our crystal central has a morphing crystal in the middle that rotates shining the sun on different parts of the dome in a way that appears circular all the time - it adapts to compensate. It projects on a daily path which gives each location on the earth the appearance of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but also changing the path it travels each day to be lower or higher in the sky on a repeating yearly cycle. Meanwhile this light that reflects down from the dome bends on a 100% predictable path to end up completely vertical at certain times of year. Different weather conditions that alter the density of the atmosphere do not appear to affect this phenomena, which rules out refraction through an atmospheric stack.

When you look at this critically, work it out yourself and don't just follow what you are told, you find it makes no sense what so ever. It can not function without a whole lot of fudges and none of this can be explained by maths, physics or recreated with computer or mechanical models. That is why there is absolutely zero proof of any of the above being real.

It makes it all fairly unlikely doesn't it?
Click to expand...

My spirit level in the bath disproves all of that
 
You must be logged on to see external links
Einstein is proven right once again thanks to 16 year study of pulsars

@Nukehasslefan suppose this is a crock of shit as well🤷‍♂️

Imagine a 16 year study for nowt🤔
 
DPTT said:
You must be logged on to see external links
Einstein is proven right once again thanks to 16 year study of pulsars

@Nukehasslefan suppose this is a crock of shit as well🤷‍♂️

Imagine a 16 year study for nowt🤔
Click to expand...
Academics. The education system is just about learning and being able to repeat "The Big Book Of Facts". The higher up the education system you go, the more you have to repeat. You never do experiments, never do a proof, never do independent and unique research etc.

All said from someone with a single low grade o-level in woodwork and is therefore an expert in the UK education system.
 
DaveH said:
Academics. The education system is just about learning and being able to repeat "The Big Book Of Facts". The higher up the education system you go, the more you have to repeat. You never do experiments, never do a proof, never do independent and unique research etc.

All said from someone with a single low grade o-level in woodwork and is therefore an expert in the UK education system.
Click to expand...

As if he finished school, man. :lol:
 
junglist31 said:
Feel like an idiot now.
Click to expand...
Payne just took a guess that made him look like he knows stuff :)
DaveH said:
Academics. The education system is just about learning and being able to repeat "The Big Book Of Facts". The higher up the education system you go, the more you have to repeat. You never do experiments, never do a proof, never do independent and unique research etc.

All said from someone with a single low grade o-level in woodwork and is therefore an expert in the UK education system.
Click to expand...
I also got an o-level in woodwork, which is surprising considering I was doing French Literature.
 
Last edited:
I was listening to James O'Brien's mystery hour on LBC today ( you can listen on catch-up on their website, I would provide a link but you need to sign in but it's free) at 02:24 someone phones in asking why is one end of the Panama canal higher than the other and locks are needed to compensate. After all, the sea level should be the same on the Pacific side as the Atlantic side. At 02:35 a caller answers that because of the centrifugal force caused by the spin of the earth ( Nukie's merry-go-round) the water is pushed up against the Pacific side (I think). At 02:44:30 Another caller adds that due to something called an equipotential surface, the different density of parts of the earth causes the water to have a different level in different places instead of lying flat like in a bath or a flat earth or forming a perfect curve like others are implying. It is a curve on our globe but a slightly bumpy one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top