Put a flat earthier into space

[Kevj]

I think he believes his stuff but is just trolling now

Now? He’s been trolling since he first posted back in July.

 

[Nobby]

Now? He’s been trolling since he first posted back in July.

Nah early doors he tried , now he doesn't

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You have been schooled in flat earth nonsense.
You don't accept it, but it's a fact.

What is 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.

Flat Earther is a term used to hit anyone that refuses to believe they live on a globe.
If you want to call me a flat Earther I accept.
Water is flat and lots of land is flat.
I prefer cell Earther but flat will do, in any form people choose.

You are the one demanding proof.Which when provided is dismissed out of hand as rubbish.

You and others are offering proof without actually presenting it yourselves.
I don;t demand proof, I ask for it and up to now I've been provided with zero proof but lots of appeals to authority and lots of rants and raves about proof's but none shown.

Yet you’re unable and unwilling to table anything which substantiate your claims.

Water level. It's tehre for anyone to observe, test and repeat.

The info provided by others on here is credible.

Credible for what?
The info provided is taken from the schooling not from actually knowing facts.
You think it's credible because that's what you follow.I understand that, like I said.

It’s peer reviewed, tested and re-tested for accuracy or error.

Peer reviewed means nothing.

I bother to engage with you on the basis you’re an insult to modern science and engineering.

Or I'm an insult to modern shenanigans passing off as modern science.

But I fear no amount of factual information which proves the world is a globe will ever be accepted by you.

All.

Absolutely all.
All you have to do is provide me with actual factual information. Can you do that?

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

Then you keep that in mind. I'm not asking you to believe anything I say. It's down to you. You can brush every word aside and overlook me.
Expecting me to provide an accurate map based on my thought process is pointless.
For me to provide this I would need to literally map the world we live in, entirely.
If you can tell me how one person can do that then explain to me.

I can offer nothing more than my thoughts and why they're like they are.That's it. If you don't like that then I suggest you don't ask me anything. Simple really.

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.

You're an adult. Put me on ignore. I'm capable of ignoring people so surely you can ignore me. Then I'm not tehre to frustrate.
I'll ignore you if you want me to. Would you prefer it if I instigate the ignore so you get zero response?

I've shown you stuff from scratch, my own observations and you reject them.

What have you shown me that proves anything?

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.

Such as?

The globe/non-globe question is not only about us on here.

Absolutely. It's simply a discussion and has more than one arguing side.

The facts don't have to come from only us on here.

Nope. The facts can come from anywhere. But seeing as we're on here then it should be pertinent to here, as it stands...with us.
All we need now are some facts from the global side.

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.

I have no rule. I argue my corner whether it's deemed mad or nonsense or whatever names are attributed to me by the many who back pat away.
As for providing proof from my side. Water level.

As for you providing proof. Zero.

What are molecules of atmosphere?

What we are part of.

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

I've explained a lot. It's ridiculed and rejected and overlooked and I accept that.
Arguing that it's not been answered is just arguing because you don;t accept the answers, which is fine but does not mean it's never been addressed.

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

Then you've taken something from it.

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

What can you prove from the script you were handed on a plate?
The actor may struggle to act out the scene if the script is not there.

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

Pick each question from the video and relay that to me and let's see what transpires.
If you don't want to then just say and we can cease to argue it.

 

[BigPete]

What is a fact?

You are a tatey

Water level. It's tehre for anyone to observe, test and repeat.

You ever going to reveal how you tested it then Einstein?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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

No need to measure it over any massive distance.
Observation over distance that show landmarks over water, is more than enough.
However, the basics are right there in the faces of anyone who wishes to test.
Merely throwing it aside because you were told Earth is a spinning globe, means you go with the narrative that has zero reality of tests but does have plenty of pretence.

If mathematics backs up observations, then it strongly suggests it is true.

Yep, for mathematically true observations.

For example mathematics can be used to predict most of the things we observed and have discussed in this thread.

Ok, like I asked you before.
Tell me how you can get the distance to the moon and it's size.
Do not appeal to authority on this.
Let's see where you go on it.
If maths works and trig is all good and proper for things in the sky, then take me through it as simple and easy to prove. Can you offer that?
If you can then we can move on a little to see how it comes to what you suggest.

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,

And you're welcome to that.

I have seen the rings of saturn myself, many times. That makes it valid as something that exists.

Show me.

If it is valid for me, then it is valid for everyone I share a universe with.

Valid as in what?
You mean it's valid as a shape or valid as a planet?

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.

The thing about a planetarium as they call it) it just is. The thing about a dome and projections is....it just is. It's easy to say it but proving what's being said is the hardest part.

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

I'm waiting for question 1 and then we can move to question 2...and so on.
Are you ready?

 

[BigPete]

Tries to act like a smart arse but I bet if you went back in time he would be one of the first ones hanging the monkey.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

You can open up a thread on my psychological mindset if you feel the need.

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

Just offering back as best I can for the stuff that's shoved into my direction.

You are a tatey

You seem to be trying to mash things up here....why?

You ever going to reveal how you tested it then Einstein?

Yo can do lots of stuff yourself if you can take yourself away from bias.

 

[BigPete]

You seem to be trying to mash things up here....why?

Weyy

Yo can do lots of stuff yourself if you can take yourself away from bias.

Such as?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Such as?

I think you're smart enough to figure it out. It's about putting your own mind to work.
Bias is the biggest hurdle. Conquer than and you can move on to testing.

 

[DPTT]

No need to measure it over any massive distance.
Observation over distance that show landmarks over water, is more than enough.
However, the basics are right there in the faces of anyone who wishes to test.
Merely throwing it aside because you were told Earth is a spinning globe, means you go with the narrative that has zero reality of tests but does have plenty of pretence.

Yep, for mathematically true observations.

Ok, like I asked you before.
Tell me how you can get the distance to the moon and it's size.
Do not appeal to authority on this.
Let's see where you go on it.
If maths works and trig is all good and proper for things in the sky, then take me through it as simple and easy to prove. Can you offer that?
If you can then we can move on a little to see how it comes to what you suggest.


And you're welcome to that.

Show me.

Valid as in what?
You mean it's valid as a shape or valid as a planet?

The thing about a planetarium as they call it) it just is. The thing about a dome and projections is....it just is. It's easy to say it but proving what's being said is the hardest part.


I'm waiting for question 1 and then we can move to question 2...and so on.
Are you ready?

Do you agree with what he said ?

If not then why?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Do you agree with what he said ?

If not then why?

Do I agree with what who said?

 

[DPTT]

Do I agree with what who said?

The man talking in the video who’s voice you can hear.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The man talking in the video who’s voice you can hear.

What is he saying?

 

[DPTT]

What is he saying?

Watch it then let me know if you agree with him or not

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Watch it then let me know if you agree with him or not

How about you relay the points to me. If not then we'll leave it at that.

 

[DPTT]

How about you relay the points to me. If not then we'll leave it at that.

You all over.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You all over.

You all over.

 

[BigPete]

 

[Nobby]

I'm waiting for question 1 and then we can move to question 2...and so on.

You have had point 1, " can they provide a scale map of their world model that fits real world observation,"

And as we have established no you can't

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You have had point 1, " can they provide a scale map of their world model that fits real world observation,"

And as we have established no you can't

Ok, now a counter point.
Can any of you provide a scale map of your world without the aid of those who schooled the current one into you?

My guess is, you can't, so I'd say question 1 is absolutely pointless.

Question 2?