Put a flat earthier into space

[SYB_DC]

What line in the distance?
Are you talking about the horizon?
It isn't a real line.

Just like that thing between your ears isn't a real brain, judging by results.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Nobody's said that.

It's pretty much exactly what you're saying all along. You're telling us we don't understand, we're just schooled

Well, we're at loggerheads on this one with many things, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing it.

Yep...and this is what the debate is all about.

No, there is no debate. There's your claim that the Earth is not a globe, and there's the truth. That's not a debate.

No.
I clearly understand the reality.
You're the one that believes massive bodies of water manage to act like it does on your spinning globe....etc, when you know in your mind it does not represent reality.

You don't..

It doesn't matter. You used a clock face as your argument so I argued from it.

Again, I didn't use a clock face as an argument. I used it to illustrate how lines lean away from each other on a circle.

Nope.

Of course it is. Lay the clock flat on a table, the numbers are all still around the edge and they all lean away from each other just the same.

Nope, not at all.

If you want to claim that a plumb line point to anything other than the centre of the Earth you're going to have to provide an alternative including reasons and proof, because it's exactly what it does point to.

Absolutely not, unless you want to use 12 to 6 as your argument which I'd accept. But then it leaves you with many issues.

Not for the first time you're given an analogy and think you understand it better than whoever supplied it, while clearly demonstrating that you don't understand it at all.

No it doesn't. It makes absolutely no sense at all for a spinning globe. None.

I choose to use my own senses and also simple experiments that anyone can do. Those who have a mindset to want to.

It does make sense on a globe.
Nothing makes sense in your half arsed alternative.
You've chosen to be an idiot.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why do you think we absolutely do not know things for a fact?

You probably know many many things for a fact. But we're dealing with a spinning globe and space, plus all the carry on about this supposed set up and you cannot provide one proof of it and you know it.
This is the debate.
Offering what you think is a proof is fine but as long as you know that's all you're doing.

We are not all clueless morons you know?

I never for one second thought you were.

What is wrong for being "offered on a plate"?

Absolutely nothing. I get plenty offered on a plate and I accept some of it but for me to argue it I'd have to agree I'd be arguing from authority.
This is what you and others are doing and it's all well and good.
What can we do other than try and find alternates to that and argue as to whether that authority is actually based on legitimate truth's.

This is one of your favorite phrases, but it is just things that are common knowledge.

Common knowledge suggests mass acceptance of a story. It does not mean mass acceptance of facts, except to go along with a common knowledge of something told far and wide as being factual and argued for......and backed up by like minded peers.

You have even argued that about some of the basic mathematics I have provided.

If you think mathematics cannot be used to push fiction then there's no point in arguing it. Just go with what you think.
When someone offers up a so called star at 20 light years and of a size of X amount diameter/circumference...etc and you tell me the maths is correct, then you will basically accept anything told by authority that maths cannot be skewed.

Argue that as much as you want but you know what I'm getting at.

Is there really something bad in using trigonometry when it has been proven for thousands of years?

Nothing wrong with trig if it's used in the right way.
Using it for so called space is offering nothing and you know it.

Can you tell us one experiment you have performed over a body of water the size of a swimming pool and determined it was flat?

How do you do it? How did you measure it? What amount of curve would you expect on a planet 6371km radius if the water was going to conform to a ball?

I wouldn't expect any curvature on an y planet because there's no such thing as planets.

 

[Nobby]

Your global map was made for you.
Unless you can show me how you would produce one without the plated up ready one you have at your table.

That I am not a map maker does not make the map I use any less accurate. The fact I don't know how to make my mobile phone doesn't mean it doesn't work.

If your earth model is shared by other people feel free to post their accurate map with a scale.

If your earth model isn't shared by anyone else, then yes it's down to you to make an accurate scaled map

 

[Deleted member 49400]

In his world, the "planets" and "stars" are just points of light being reflected back off the dome, projected by a "super carbon arc light" through a big bunch of crystals at the part of the world you or I would call the north pole.

"The space vacuum doesn't exist".

Wtf?
Listen kids don't do drugs, remember, the average IQ is 100, yes 100, so for everyone who has an IQ above 140, there's someone with an IQ of 60. I think we've found one below the average, well below.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You are in reality the least questioning person on here.

That depends on how you want to see it.

You can't even except the tiniest possibility that you could be wrong but that the entire scientific community plus everyone posting here is.

But Used to follow a spinning global model and space..etc...etc...etc.
Surely I must have believed I was wrong to then get to a stationary globe in space, until I whittled away at it all to get down to where I'm at now which is trying to piece potentials together from my mindset and experiments.

Have you strayed from your spinning globe or is that one nailed on for whatever reasons?

So who's not accepting?

Try questioning the plausibility of that (how, who, why). Yes I know I'm wasting my time!

I'd actually rebound that back to you.

 

[SYB_DC]

I wouldn't expect any curvature on an y planet because there's no such thing as planets.

We've now arrived at the "there's no such thing as planets" phase of the discussion, I see.

As I've said before, you can't buy entertainment like this.

 

[BigPete]

It's well worth reading the thread though. Not for his bullshittery, but for all the scientific explanations, experiments, images and videos that the non-flat-earth folks have produced.

100% we have some very clever posters on here..

Then we have @Nukehasslefan

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Well we've asked for an accurate map with scale previously and he can't provide one

You seriously expect me to provide a map. Do you think you could provide one without reliance on the one you were handed on a plate?

 

[BigPete]

You seriously expect me to provide a map. Do you think you could provide one without reliance on the one you were handed on a plate?

You expect everyone else to provide from scratch so surely you would do the same?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

You seriously expect me to provide a map. Do you think you could provide one without reliance on the one you were handed on a plate?

But you've been handed at least the shapes of all the countries on a plate, put them together on your flat/not flat cell bottom

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This berk has never ever watched Star Trek.

Watch it. I only watched the older one's with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

So, Saturn doesn't have rings it's an arc?

Rings of what?
Have you see it for yourself?

And how come every planet perfectly faces us from its face?

How come the moon only faces us on one face?
Maybe they're reflections and holographic images in that sky and not floating and spinning balls in a so called vacuum of nothingness.

Or are we the only disc in the Milky Way?

A disc? I wouldn't think so.
A cell among many? Possible in my honest opinion.

Is the sun flat?

A carbon arc in the centre of Earth.
What would you class an arcing welder or a carbon arcing search light as a shape?

Are we a spinning disc?

Nope. I'd say a breathing cell.

Does the moon orbit us and do we orbit the sun?

Nope. They move around the cell membrane (ice dome) as reflected energy from the centre.

Strange how a bloke on a football forum knows more than NASA scientists.

That all depends on what NASA scientists really know. You may know more factual stuff. They may know more fictional stories.

This is what it's all about. Putting the cat among the pigeons.

 

[fyl2u]

Watch it. I only watched the older one's with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

Rings of what?
Have you see it for yourself?

How come the moon only faces us on one face?
Maybe they're reflections and holographic images in that sky and not floating and spinning balls in a so called vacuum of nothingness.

A disc? I wouldn't think so.
A cell among many? Possible in my honest opinion.

A carbon arc in the centre of Earth.
What would you class an arcing welder or a carbon arcing search light as a shape?

Nope. I'd say a breathing cell.

Nope. They move around the cell membrane (ice dome) as reflected energy from the centre.

That all depends on what NASA scientists really know. You may know more factual stuff. They may know more fictional stories.

This is what it's all about. Putting the cat among the pigeons.

I see you're ignoring my posts again.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So whatever crystal lens this single projector is shining through is revolving at at least two different speeds simultaneously right?

Mirror images and reflections can do all kinds of stuff.

That only accounts for Sun and stars, you also need to account for each planet individually, and all of their moons.

If you've looked at how a planetarium (as they call them) work then you can see how a lot of stuff can alter.

Also, in order for a circular sun to appear circular for everyone, everywhere at the same time, it's constantly distorting to allow for how reflections actually work, and doing it differently for everyone, all at the same time.

Distance offers little distortion back to the human eye.
Like I said before, you can offer a lighted shape on a wall and see it as that shape.
Move a bit more distant and your shape now becomes circular.

While all this happens it also has to magically create a reflection of part of the projection which looks nothing like the original apart from the circular shape, which somehow varies in shape throughout the course of a month, every month.

The human vision.

All while not reflecting any of the other "points of light."

Not sure what you mean by this bit.

That's all before taking into account the heat/extreme cold contradictions that melt the dome ???miles away while not melting the crystal lens of the projector.

It will, like I said but it's marginal.
Look at how tall a mountain is in the sun and it is covered in snow and ice. Why?
It's called expanded molecules of atmosphere. Thinner less agitated stacked layers.

Now imagine up at the dome. So little agitation and the energy on the move at all times giving little changes to the ice to hit super-fluidity.

Once you've explained all of those you still need to correctly explain how day and night works around the world in the way it is known to.

The energy moves around just like a radar screen would, if you want an analogy.
It's wavelengths and simply atmospheric absorption of them as it moves around leaving lesser and lesser light and warmth as it hits other areas to offer the full on wavelengths.

You cant give a real answer to any of these, yet the global model explains all of it perfectly well.

The global model offers fantasy. It offers nothing other than fairy tales.

No. You have zero credibility on here.

I never had any to start with so I won't be too upset about that.
I'm a Newcastle UNited fan on a Sunderland forum. My credibility is all but wiped out just for that.
Going against mainstream ideals is just the icing on the cake, so don;t think too hard on what my credibility means to people.

In fact, the more you post without providing any substance removed any residual credibility you had left.

I'm fine with how you want to think.
Just remember when you say that, you offer zero proof against anything I say and especially for a spinning globe.
So that leaves you with digs. And you're welcome to them.

I don’t need to provide you with facts and neither does anyone else.

I don't expect you to. I ask but I'm more than happy for your refusal.

You have been provided with credible evidence for months now and you dismiss it in a way which makes you look quite frankly stupid and ignorant.

Credible evidence?
You mean circumstantial?
That's not proof.

I’m unsure why you continue to post.

I'm unsure why you bother to engage with me...seriously. Bin me.

 

[fyl2u]

Mirror images and reflections can do all kinds of stuff.

If you've looked at how a planetarium (as they call them) work then you can see how a lot of stuff can alter.

Distance offers little distortion back to the human eye.
Like I said before, you can offer a lighted shape on a wall and see it as that shape.
Move a bit more distant and your shape now becomes circular.



The human vision.

Not sure what you mean by this bit.

It will, like I said but it's marginal.
Look at how tall a mountain is in the sun and it is covered in snow and ice. Why?
It's called expanded molecules of atmosphere. Thinner less agitated stacked layers.

Now imagine up at the dome. So little agitation and the energy on the move at all times giving little changes to the ice to hit super-fluidity.


The energy moves around just like a radar screen would, if you want an analogy.
It's wavelengths and simply atmospheric absorption of them as it moves around leaving lesser and lesser light and warmth as it hits other areas to offer the full on wavelengths.

The global model offers fantasy. It offers nothing other than fairy tales.

I never had any to start with so I won't be too upset about that.
I'm a Newcastle UNited fan on a Sunderland forum. My credibility is all but wiped out just for that.
Going against mainstream ideals is just the icing on the cake, so don;t think too hard on what my credibility means to people.

I'm fine with how you want to think.
Just remember when you say that, you offer zero proof against anything I say and especially for a spinning globe.
So that leaves you with digs. And you're welcome to them.

I don't expect you to. I ask but I'm more than happy for your refusal.

Credible evidence?
You mean circumstantial?
That's not proof.

I'm unsure why you bother to engage with me...seriously. Bin me.

What's a super fluid?

Mirror images and reflections can do all kinds of stuff.

If you've looked at how a planetarium (as they call them) work then you can see how a lot of stuff can alter.

Distance offers little distortion back to the human eye.
Like I said before, you can offer a lighted shape on a wall and see it as that shape.
Move a bit more distant and your shape now becomes circular.



The human vision.

Not sure what you mean by this bit.

It will, like I said but it's marginal.
Look at how tall a mountain is in the sun and it is covered in snow and ice. Why?
It's called expanded molecules of atmosphere. Thinner less agitated stacked layers.

Now imagine up at the dome. So little agitation and the energy on the move at all times giving little changes to the ice to hit super-fluidity.


The energy moves around just like a radar screen would, if you want an analogy.
It's wavelengths and simply atmospheric absorption of them as it moves around leaving lesser and lesser light and warmth as it hits other areas to offer the full on wavelengths.

The global model offers fantasy. It offers nothing other than fairy tales.

I never had any to start with so I won't be too upset about that.
I'm a Newcastle UNited fan on a Sunderland forum. My credibility is all but wiped out just for that.
Going against mainstream ideals is just the icing on the cake, so don;t think too hard on what my credibility means to people.

I'm fine with how you want to think.
Just remember when you say that, you offer zero proof against anything I say and especially for a spinning globe.
So that leaves you with digs. And you're welcome to them.

I don't expect you to. I ask but I'm more than happy for your refusal.

Credible evidence?
You mean circumstantial?
That's not proof.

I'm unsure why you bother to engage with me...seriously. Bin me.

What's a "full on wavelength"?

What size wavelengths are not "full on"?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It's pretty much exactly what you're saying all along. You're telling us we don't understand, we're just schooled

You are schooled into this stuff. It's not a dig, it's the truth.
We're all schooled.

No, there is no debate. There's your claim that the Earth is not a globe, and there's the truth. That's not a debate.

If that was the case you'd be correct.
The issue is there's no truth for the spinning globe, so what is the other truth?

Of course it is. Lay the clock flat on a table, the numbers are all still around the edge and they all lean away from each other just the same.

Now you're getting somewhere.
It's like putting rows of houses in a crescent. It works on an Earth that is not a spinning globe.

If you want to claim that a plumb line point to anything other than the centre of the Earth you're going to have to provide an alternative including reasons and proof, because it's exactly what it does point to.

No need.
You can't have a bulging Earth at your equator due to 1000 plus mph rotation and then claim a plum line to the centre.

 

[fyl2u]

For that matter, what's a "wavelength"?

No need.
You can't have a bulging Earth at your equator due to 1000 plus mph rotation and then claim a plum line to the centre.

Why not? According to our model, that's exactly what should happen.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

If you've looked at how a planetarium (as they call them) work then you can see how a lot of stuff can alter.

And you can see how a big crystal cannot do the same.

Distance offers little distortion back to the human eye.
Like I said before, you can offer a lighted shape on a wall and see it as that shape.
Move a bit more distant and your shape now becomes circular.

Now angle the light across the wall.... the shape changes.
The sun doesn't.

The human vision.

Human vision does not magically change the shape of the sun/reflection to make sure it's always circular.

Not sure what you mean by this bit.

Yes you do. You claim the moon is a reflection of the Sun, but cant explain why the stars and planets are not also reflected.

It will, like I said but it's marginal.
Look at how tall a mountain is in the sun and it is covered in snow and ice. Why?
It's called expanded molecules of atmosphere. Thinner less agitated stacked layers.

It's called "you're just making shit up"

The energy moves around just like a radar screen would, if you want an analogy.

But daylight doesn't. If your reflection sun is near the south pole, or the outer edge of your cell circle, it has to shine across parts of the Earth that are in darkness.

It's wavelengths and simply atmospheric absorption of them as it moves around leaving lesser and lesser light and warmth as it hits other areas to offer the full on wavelengths.

The global model offers fantasy. It offers nothing other than fairy tales.

You're making it all up, none of it makes sense, but the tried and tested and proven model is fantasy and fairy tales? Ok

Mirror images and reflections can do all kinds of stuff.

They cant do what you're attributing to them.
You have nothing but fantasy. Not one shred of evidence to actually disprove the spinning globe and nothing whatsoever to support your alternative.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

That I am not a map maker does not make the map I use any less accurate.

It doesn't make you know it all, either.

The fact I don't know how to make my mobile phone doesn't mean it doesn't work.

When we argue that you can claim it.

If your earth model is shared by other people feel free to post their accurate map with a scale.

No need. I don't ride of the tailcoats of others.

If your earth model isn't shared by anyone else, then yes it's down to you to make an accurate scaled map

No it's not. It's down to me to go with what I believe has some merit and pick away at it and it's up to you to try to understand it as best you can...if it interests you. And if it does, it's then up to you to piece the jigsaw.

Other than that I'm not worth your time.

 

[fyl2u]

It doesn't make you know it all, either.

When we argue that you can claim it.

No need. I don't ride of the tailcoats of others.

No it's not. It's down to me to go with what I believe has some merit and pick away at it and it's up to you to try to understand it as best you can...if it interests you. And if it does, it's then up to you to piece the jigsaw.

Other than that I'm not worth your time.

Why are you ignoring my posts? I've answered all your questions from the past few days in them, including the "clock-building-plumb" analogy you keep repeating.