Put a flat earthier into space

[Kevj]

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.

He has taken the stance that your line of sight is infinitely narrow and has no field of view, therefore (if this was the case) you would need to move your head to follow the sun tracking downwards over the horizon. However, this isn’t how our sight works, but he will willingly argue a ridiculous point in order to ‘prove’ another.

 

[fyl2u]

Thick as manure.

 

[High Entropy]

I showed you a diagram showing otherwise.

No you didn't.

 

[Kevj]

I showed you a diagram showing otherwise.

You must be logged on to see external links

On this occasion, the photographer was taking images of the sun and the ISS happened to be in the Shot. It’s unintentional.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

On this occasion, the photographer was taking images of the sun and the ISS happened to be in the Shot. It’s unintentional.

Aye.

 

[Kevj]

Unashamedly manipulated image of the moon.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[payne]

He has taken the stance that your line of sight is infinitely narrow and has no field of view, therefore (if this was the case) you would need to move your head to follow the sun tracking downwards over the horizon. However, this isn’t how our sight works, but he will willingly argue a ridiculous point in order to ‘prove’ another.

It's proper odd that one person is so sure that he and he alone is the only critical thinker to have ever lived.

On this occasion, the photographer was taking images of the sun and the ISS happened to be in the Shot. It’s unintentional.

projection central must have had something over the glass

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.

Exactly, he's in a cult and has a 100% faith in the flat earth/dome bible. Like any religion or cult no evidence is needed, only blind faith. He even admits it when he says proof can't be offered.
@Nukehasslefan so my mate who has worked on bridge construction has lied to me when he says they calculate for the curvature of the planet? If, not, as I know you don't like to call people liars, what on earth is he calculating?

 

[DaveH]

It's all natural. We just grasp it and put it to use.

You'll never see a sunset over any horizon (theoretical) line on a spinning globe.
That's what I'm saying.

Look at my diagram.

I'm not after winning you over. You can take whatever you wish from what I've said.

What is 99.9% of humanity right about in terms of what they see of a spinning globe and a 93 million-mile sun and 248,000-mile moon and light year stars...and so on and so on?

Or were they simply told it to be and accept it as that?

But you can’t explain how planets and nebula work in your fantasy world, I think that is the key thing. “Like a video projector” is no explanation. If it is a video being projected and focussed then there has to be technology and intelligence behind it. That implies a higher power out to trick us.

Or it is natural and you have a swirling mini-Jupiter image suspended in a crystal and all the movement and autofocus stuff I said.

It is all about the details and unfortunately all alternate worlds put forward by conspiracy loons break down when yoj start to look at any level of detail and try to construct how it could possibly work.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

so my mate who has worked on bridge construction has lied to me when he says they calculate for the curvature of the planet? If, not, as I know you don't like to call people liars, what on earth is he calculating?

I don't know what he's calculating because I don't know his job. What I do know for myself is he's not taking any globe into account.

Let me explain why.

Imagine building a bridge with two towers and being told the towers are farther apart at the top than the bottom as you would expect with the global storyline.
If that's the case then imagine 10 towers along a bridge.
Now the central two would supposedly be closer to each other at the bottom and farther away at the top. It stands to reason if this was the case then your towers on each side of those would have to follow that pattern but this would be impossible as the central two towers are already leaning the opposite way from centre which means they would be leaning toward the next tower away from centre and yet that tower would have to lean in to compensate or if it followed that same pattern then it would get progressively farther apart at the top from centre tower outwards to the rest. It simply would not work.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I don't know what he's calculating because I don't know his job. What I do know for myself is he's not taking any globe into account.

Let me explain why.

Imagine building a bridge with two towers and being told the towers are farther apart at the top than the bottom as you would expect with the global storyline.
If that's the case then imagine 10 towers along a bridge.
Now the central two would supposedly be closer to each other at the bottom and farther away at the top. It stands to reason if this was the case then your towers on each side of those would have to follow that pattern but this would be impossible as the central two towers are already leaning the opposite way from centre which means they would be leaning toward the next tower away from centre and yet that tower would have to lean in to compensate or if it followed that same pattern then it would get progressively farther apart at the top from centre tower outwards to the rest. It simply would not work.

Oh please do a diagram

 

[payne]

I don't know what he's calculating because I don't know his job. What I do know for myself is he's not taking any globe into account.

Let me explain why.

Imagine building a bridge with two towers and being told the towers are farther apart at the top than the bottom as you would expect with the global storyline.
If that's the case then imagine 10 towers along a bridge.
Now the central two would supposedly be closer to each other at the bottom and farther away at the top. It stands to reason if this was the case then your towers on each side of those would have to follow that pattern but this would be impossible as the central two towers are already leaning the opposite way from centre which means they would be leaning toward the next tower away from centre and yet that tower would have to lean in to compensate or if it followed that same pattern then it would get progressively farther apart at the top from centre tower outwards to the rest. It simply would not work.

I'll let him know he's been doing everything wrong for the last 15 year. Hopefully he can build better knowing this new information. If only he'd used logic this whole time.

 

[GingerNick]

Who updates the dome projection then?
Obviously the iss wasn't there 50 years ago but it is now, I can see sattelites at night in dark sky areas...or is the magic sky dome updating itself so I can see the not really there satellites

 

[Nukehasslefan]

But you can’t explain how planets and nebula work in your fantasy world, I think that is the key thing. “Like a video projector” is no explanation. If it is a video being projected and focussed then there has to be technology and intelligence behind it. That implies a higher power out to trick us.

It means nothing of the sort. It means natural projection from the centre onto a dome.
Whatever is in that centre is projected as points of light or holographic, naturally.
All we've done as a species is to harness that through our own fabrications using a similar setup on a small scale.

Or it is natural and you have a swirling mini-Jupiter image suspended in a crystal and all the movement and autofocus stuff I said.

Whatever people see through the naked eye or telescope is what's projected from the centre, in my honest opinion.
Most of what people see are simply points of light and most of what we're coaxed into being shown are colourful so-called planets and stars and whatnot.
Imagine being told you're looking at the light from a few million years ago. And people simply accept it as a fact and argue it as their fact, which it clearly isn't.
So this is where we're at, regardless.

It is all about the details and unfortunately all alternate worlds put forward by conspiracy loons break down when yoj start to look at any level of detail and try to construct how it could possibly work.

It does not matter what breaks down in your mind, to me. You follow a global model and all the rest of what's given out. I get it and I also disagree with it and offer you the same back that you offer me. You're reliant on being fed and those are your handed facts which you then convey to me as your facts, which you clearly do not know are genuine facts in terms of what we're arguing.

In your favour you have a majority mindset comfort blanket following as you follow that.
The nature of the beast that is in all of us.

I'll let him know he's been doing everything wrong for the last 15 year. Hopefully he can build better knowing this new information. If only he'd used logic this whole time.

Just let him know he's not using any Earth curvature which he likely already knows.

 

[Kevj]

I don't know what he's calculating because I don't know his job. What I do know for myself is he's not taking any globe into account.

Let me explain why.

Imagine building a bridge with two towers and being told the towers are farther apart at the top than the bottom as you would expect with the global storyline.
If that's the case then imagine 10 towers along a bridge.
Now the central two would supposedly be closer to each other at the bottom and farther away at the top. It stands to reason if this was the case then your towers on each side of those would have to follow that pattern but this would be impossible as the central two towers are already leaning the opposite way from centre which means they would be leaning toward the next tower away from centre and yet that tower would have to lean in to compensate or if it followed that same pattern then it would get progressively farther apart at the top from centre tower outwards to the rest. It simply would not work.

They’re all perpendicular to the ground at the point the piers are founded. It is a circular array, with the central point being concentric (generally) to the centre of the earth.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Who updates the dome projection then?

It's a cycle and it'll go on for as long as the energy within is capable.

Obviously the iss wasn't there 50 years ago but it is now, I can see sattelites at night in dark sky areas...or is the magic sky dome updating itself so I can see the not really there satellites

There's man-made stuff in that sky at all times. I'm arguing against space, not the sky.

 

[High Entropy]

You're reliant on being fed and those are your handed facts which you then convey to me as your facts, which you clearly do not know are genuine facts in terms of what we're arguing.

Such nonsense, you can do all the experiments yourself, you don't need to be FED them, just do them yourself.

Like these flat earthers who go to great lengths to prove no curvature.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Nukehasslefan]

They’re all perpendicular to the ground at the point the piers are founded. It is a circular array, with the central point being concentric (generally) to the centre of the earth.

The point is we are told engineers take the Earth's curvature into account when building a bridge. They wouldn't need to take anything into account if it truly was a globe because as you mention it's a natural progression if you were to actually see it from a global point of view, even using an orange with cocktail sticks stuck in all around it.
You would see the exact thing people portray as, farther apart at the top than the bottom and following the centre of the orange.
So my argument is this. What are they taking into account when it should be natural as you say?

Such nonsense, you can do all the experiments yourself, you don't need to be FED them, just do them yourself.

Like these flat earthers who go to great lengths to prove no curvature.

You must be logged on to see media items

There are videos out there that debunk this. So who is right?

If you want to argue for the 8 inches per mile squared then what is viewed on Earth over distance clearly kills the global theory off.
One argument kills the other for the globe.

 

[Kevj]

The point is we are told engineers take the Earth's curvature into account when building a bridge. They wouldn't need to take anything into account if it truly was a globe because as you mention it's a natural progression if you were to actually see it from a global point of view, even using an orange with cocktail sticks stuck in all around it.
You would see the exact thing people portray as, farther apart at the top than the bottom and following the centre of the orange.
So my argument is this. What are they taking into account when it should be natural as you say?

It’s exactly like an orange and cocktail sticks. Only the orange is 0.00000059% the size of the earth’s circumference.
The angular difference of the piers is not perceivable to the human eye as it is minute. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

 

[Pancho]

It’s exactly like an orange and cocktail sticks. Only the orange is 0.00000059% the size of the earth’s circumference.
The angular difference of the piers is not perceivable to the human eye as it is minute. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Kevj]

Logon or register to see this image

Another stunning image from Webb.

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

I’ve worked on projects which need to take this into account. He is being deliberately obtuse once again because mugs like me keep replying to him.