Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

What does an IQ solve in life?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

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.

When you say "now you're getting somewhere" it somehow suggests otherwise. If the analogy works on a clock laid down, it works on a clock wherever it is.

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.

Of course you can. Go anywhere you like around the globe and try it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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

Nobody's providing anything from scratch. It's all based on referencing.

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

I'm provided with nothing that has any proven reality.

 

[Deleted member 49400]

What does an IQ solve in life?

Sorry, I'm not lowering myself down to your level. Wind up these all you like, I've wasted enough time on you already.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

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

You have been schooled in flat earth nonsense.
You don't accept it, but it's a fact. You've added what you think is an original twist (it isn't) and refuse to admit you're a flat earther, but you spout all the same flat earth nonsense and make all the same claims. You are a flat earther on a spinning globe.

 

[Kevj]

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.

You are the one demanding proof. Which when provided is dismissed out of hand as rubbish. Yet you’re unable and unwilling to table anything which substantiate your claims.

The info provided by others on here is credible. It’s peer reviewed, tested and re-tested for accuracy or error.

I bother to engage with you on the basis you’re an insult to modern science and engineering. But I fear no amount of factual information which proves the world is a globe will ever be accepted by you.

 

[Nobby]

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?

Yes, you are proposing an alternate world view, so you can reasonably be expected to be able to accurately describe and map that reality, to allow it to be tested.

Obviously if you can't it suggests you don't have the evidence to argue that you have a credible model

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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

A bit different, don't you think?

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

Over distance, yes is does.

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.

They are reflected but as tiny points of light compared.

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

Maybe but you're just following a narrative set out for you. A script you can recite at the drop of a hat.

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.

Nope.

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.

Then you keep that. I believe your model is utter fantasy so I would not expect you to take anything from mine.

 

[Kevj]

Sorry, I'm not lowering myself down to your level. Wind up these all you like, I've wasted enough time on you already.

It’s a frustrating scenario. You step away from the thread for a few days then read it again only to shake your head in disbelief about the utter shite he posts and get drawn back in.

 

[Nobby]

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


Why not? According to reality,that's exactly what happens.

Tidied

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Nobody's providing anything from scratch. It's all based on referencing.

I'm provided with nothing that has any proven reality.

I've shown you stuff from scratch, my own observations and you reject them. But anyway, so what? As has already been said, shared knowledge is still knowledge and lots of the stuff you' definitely have been provided with is stuff you could test for yourself, but wont.
The globe/non-globe question is not only about us on here. The facts don't have to come from only us on here. You only cling to this little rule of yours to protect your precious little theory from ever being properly tested because you know it cant stand up to any sort of testing.

 

[Nobby]

molecules of atmosphere

What are molecules of atmosphere?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

A bit different, don't you think?

It's exactly what you have to explain if the sun is a projection on a dome.

Over distance, yes is does.

Not to the extent that what would clearly appear elliptical is always corrected to circular.

They are reflected but as tiny points of light compared.

No they are not. Show me a picture of the sky which shows mirror imaged stars.

Maybe but you're just following a narrative set out for you. A script you can recite at the drop of a hat.

Nope.

Yes, that's exactly what has to happen on your model. It's impossible.

Then you keep that. I believe your model is utter fantasy so I would not expect you to take anything from mine.

Well I've taken several months of entertainment from it, but nothing of practical use.

Maybe but you're just following a narrative set out for you. A script you can recite at the drop of a hat.

"a script that can be tested and proven to be correct" is the bit you missed off there.

 

[DPTT]

I'm waiting for you to offer up the questions, one by one. Let's deal with them and see what happens.

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.

Well watch the video and the questions and the answers I think is real are all in there

It’s now your turn to debunk what we think is correct

 

[What A Waster]

Go in the kitchen and get a mixing bowl.

Turn it upside down holding it above you.

Shine a torch at the centre of the flat base so the light is circular.

Now tilt the torch so the light moves around the side of the bowl.
Elliptical sun.

Crystal projection onto the dome busted.

 

[legend7]

You

Fuck it, I'm diving in.

About as much as I believe that straight lines occur naturally in nature..... so yeah, I do

I'm jumping in.

You won't regret it.
Some really interesting stuff.
And some full on window licking nonsense

 

[DaveH]

So whatever crystal lens this single projector is shining through is revolving at at least two different speeds simultaneously right? That only accounts for Sun and stars, you also need to account for each planet individually, and all of their moons.
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.
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. All while not reflecting any of the other "points of light."
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.
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.
You cant give a real answer to any of these, yet the global model explains all of it perfectly well.

Don’t forget the asteroids that are occasionally visible, and the comets. Then you have to account for changes we can see through the year such as parallax effects. Then you have the variable stars which change magnitude, nova and super nova too. Then once you have your head around that, you need to think about the other effects we see, such as how the faces of the planets change, and of course the moons in orbit of them - like the way they sometimes pass in front of the image and other time disappear behind, just as if they were in orbit.

You also have other evidence of depth, such as when the moon eclipses stars or planets. I’ve seen Jupiter peeping out from the edge of the moon (briefly for about 4 seconds before thick cloud rolled in).

That is a hell of a lot of changes going on in the sky for one projector.

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.

I never for one second thought you were.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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

So how do you measure water is flat over a descent sized distance. You skipped that question.

If mathematics backs up observations, then it strongly suggests it is true. For example mathematics can be used to predict most of the things we observed and have discussed in this thread. All except your fantasy dome world, where there is no mathematics that describes how any of it can possibly work. That kind of suggests it is unsubstantiated bollocks,

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

Rings of what?
Have you see it for yourself?

I have seen the rings of saturn myself, many times. That makes it valid as something that exists. If it is valid for me, then it is valid for everyone I share a universe with. You see the thing about the universe is, it just is, it is not based on the perception or knowledge of one individual. It just exists.

You have been schooled in flat earth nonsense.
You don't accept it, but it's a fact. You've added what you think is an original twist (it isn't) and refuse to admit you're a flat earther, but you spout all the same flat earth nonsense and make all the same claims. You are a flat earther on a spinning globe.

And posts, or used to post, on another site with the moniker “flat earth scientist”.

 

[DPTT]

@Nukehasslefan you watched that video yet and if so any observations about Point 1

 

[RollingStone]

That depends on how you want to see it.


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?


I'd actually rebound that back to you.

What sort of response is that! You don't want to answer a question so you ' rebound it back ' . What you have is a belief nothing to do with science. My belief is that you are delusional and overestimate intellectual capability.

 

[Nobby]

What sort of response is that! You don't want to answer a question so you ' rebound it back ' . What you have is a belief nothing to do with science. My belief is that you are delusional and overestimate intellectual capability.

This, he has given up trying to reason and just deflects and says "bollocks".

I think he believes his stuff but is just trolling now