Put a flat earthier into space

[3.142]

And to think we're coaxed into thinking we can have an atmosphere enveloping a spinning ball.
The dome makes so much more sense.

Nope, I'm not missing a scale.
We're told to look over a few miles of sea to see a curvature so that being the case then what I'm saying is massively pertinent.

Nothing has to be embedded into any crystal. It just needs to be projected through one.
Just as your planetarium offering has to have the image projected. This is just on a much bigger setup inside Earth. IMO.

Why is it not necessary?
If the Earth curves then any flying object going over it would have to follow that curve.
This clearly doesn't happen for obvious reasons. Because Earth is not a spinning globe. IMO.

Given there are very real things in the sky that are not projected onto the dome, like clouds, it would be very easy to perform the most rudimentary experiments and determine fairly precisely how high the dome is.

Why have you and no-one else ever in the history of humankind done this?

 

[payne]

Given there are very real things in the sky that are not projected onto the dome, like clouds, it would be very easy to perform the most rudimentary experiments and determine fairly precisely how high the dome is.

Why have you and no-one else ever in the history of humankind done this?

maybe they have

 

[Kevj]

This will be of great interest to observe too.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[payne]

This will be of great interest to observe too.

You must be logged on to see external links

all cgi. obvious to anyone who uses logic and doesn't follow the mainstream narrative

 

[legend7]

@Kevj Will need to get the banana and toilet roll out again.

I'm sure it's all just a wind up though nobody can be that stupid or ignorant. Especially when has been given examples and explanations by people clearly more educated in the field.

No no.
Honestly he is really that stupid and ignorant.
It's actually quite astounding really.

 

[BigPete]

What killed the dinosaurs then?

Is the crater just a cover up?

 

[Kevj]

What killed the dinosaurs then?

Is the crater just a cover up?

Part of the dome fell off.

 

[payne]

What killed the dinosaurs then?

Is the crater just a cover up?

all planted evidence. the earth and humanity is only 10s of thousands of years old according to the prophet. he's so clued up he has many views on flat earth, vaccines, the holocaust etc. not conspiracy theorist at all

 

[legend7]

What killed the dinosaurs then?

Is the crater just a cover up?

I'm sure he said the earth was only a thousand or so years old from memory,so I'm sure there are a few left in his world.

 

[Hep]

Such as?

I can and I will because I disagree with it being anything like a fact.

I have no issue with transport or many medicines or building designs or electronics or navigation or communications.
None of them offer any factual evidence for a spinning globe or space.

Feel free to offer up whatever you wish. It does not change my position simply because someone says so.
I can offer up the exact same thing for you on a spinning globe and space and whatnot and you cannot offer up any facts unless you offer up what you're told to be facts for which you cannot verify.

I don't take it as an insult and you're welcome to come at me in any way you feel the need to. I won't be offended if you offer up something I strongly disagree with and I hope you understand my stance whether you agree or not.

You can verify the facts with a basic telescope

 

[payne]

You can verify the facts with a basic telescope

not according to his diagram

 

[Georgewhitt]

What killed the dinosaurs then?

Jeff Golblum

 

[payne]

You can verify the facts with a basic telescope

not according to his diagram. at the end of the day he believes himself to be the smartest man to have ever lived, what you think is rational, isn't. no1 before him has ever reasoned correctly and seen what global earth is, bullshit. all the 7 billion alive now, some in STEM fields are thick and don't think with reason or logic and just follow narratives. makes perfect sense

 

[BigPete]

Jeff Golblum

 

[fyl2u]

you are demonstrably scientifically illiterate*

Careful, now.

 

[Pancho]

Careful, now.

Assuming the man isn't a troll then it's a demonstrable fact.

The flat earth idea is scraping the very bottom of the conspiracy theory barrel.

 

[fyl2u]

What killed the dinosaurs then?

Is the crater just a cover up?

Dinosaurs didn't exist, silly. The world isn't that old.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You do though.

You've told @DaveH he has no clue about the data centre he works in because light doesn't exist.

Not at all.

You dispute where planes fly and how long it takes them to navigate the massive bowl earth you propose.

Of course.

You say gps is a lie.

Not at all. Ground positioning systems are not a lie. Global and space are, in my opinion.

You say people don't take the curvature of the earth into account when designing bridges.

They don't.

You disagree with everything at a fundamental level whether you admit it or not.

Not at all.

So basically, what you're saying here is that you just dont understand.

That depends on what it is you think I don't understand.
If your mindset is rigid to a spinning globe then naturally you're not going to think anything else about what I go with and I accept that.

Your repeated insistance on keeping the viewpoint level is just nonsensical.

Not at all.

If you point a telescope at the sun, firstly you're an idiot, but more relevant here is that you would have to continually adjust the tilt to keep the sun in view, and yes, someone with a higher viewpoint will be able to see the sun set fractionally longer than you at ground level. That's not a problem with the global, it's a result of it.

That is a massive problem with a global Earth spin.

Only in your own imaginary flat-ish world where the sun moves over and around and off into the distance would you be able to keep the scope pointed towards it without constant adjustment.

This is what happens when you see the sun moving away and being obscured by the theoretical horizon line.
The global model cannot allow for this except to have people simply believe it's somehow possible. It's like a lot of stuff with a globe. It makes no sense but overall people have simply been brainwashed into it from almost day one of learning.

I'm not going to waste any more of my time than is absolutely necessary so I will suggest just one topic out of literally countless other examples - flight planning. I'll let you do your own research.

What do you know about flight planning that offers you a nailed on mindset of global?

Your second point once again perfectly illustrates your scientific illiteracy. You do not get to pick and choose which scientific theory or part thereof, fits in with your preposterous world view.

I get to pick whatever does not suit. Whether you like that or not is not my problem.

If you knew the first thing about the scientific model you'd know that it really is all or nothing.*

I know of the model. To call it scientific is a wild stretch in my opinion.

* in fairness I should point out that you are not just up against me and my 'O' level Physics grade 4. I'm getting help from a frighteningly clever retired nuclear engineer mate of mine, as required.

Whatever help you're getting will not change my stance.
As for nuclear, that's another sketchy subject with me.

To put it another way Nukey, you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts.

And the same goes for all of us.

If you're wrong, you're wrong, there is no other way to view it pal !

This is where the debate comes in because this is where the proof for either side becomes difficult.
Reliance on a majority stance does not constitute proof if you're not in genuine possession of it.

Given there are very real things in the sky that are not projected onto the dome, like clouds, it would be very easy to perform the most rudimentary experiments and determine fairly precisely how high the dome is.

Why have you and no-one else ever in the history of humankind done this?

Clouds aren't going to tell you how high a dome is.
Maybe it is known roughly how high it is but whatever it is it would be measured in hundreds of miles, in my opinion.

You can verify the facts with a basic telescope

What facts can a basic telescope offer?

 

[High Entropy]

This is where the debate comes in because this is where the proof for either side becomes difficult.
Reliance on a majority stance does not constitute proof if you're not in genuine possession of it.

Mate, it's not hard, I showed you a simple diagram that proves you will get a sunrise/sunset on a sphere, whether we're standing on one now or not was completely irrelevant. You said it was impossible without moving your head

You're wrong, 100% wrong, I just proved you wrong.

You're not into science, you're into a version of religion, you don't care about the evidence, you just believe.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Mate, it's not hard, I showed you a simple diagram that proves you will get a sunrise/sunset on a sphere, whether we're standing on one now or not was completely irrelevant. You said it was impossible without moving your head

You're wrong, 100% wrong, I just proved you wrong.

You're not into science, you're into a version of religion, you don't care about the evidence, you just believe.

I showed you a diagram showing otherwise.

Logon or register to see this image

Image of the ISS in front of the sun taken in County Durham. Courtesy of the Chronicle.

You must be logged on to see external links