Put a flat earthier into space

[payne]

"Not all right angles are equal" I believe it was.

That one thing shows the level of insanity they have to go.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Have you never in your life had an "Oh I see what you mean" moment?
Or do you just change the subject and pretend it never happened and whatnot?

I see what people mean with many things but seeing what they mean does not offer me factual statements from them, it just means I see what they're trying to convey from their side of the argument based on how they've been taught.

I

I think over 50 years of this background constantly changing and bits falling off, fine details like craters we can see would change too, but they haven't, exactly the same year after year.
Dunno why I'm discussing it, everyone including your own family knows you're full of sh*t

How do you know that image hasn't changed at some point?

Like when you can see beyond the curve?

Seeing beyond the curve would offer you a pinpoint sky and no horizon at the pinpoint.

 

[payne]

I see what people mean with many things but seeing what they mean does not offer me factual statements from them, it just means I see what they're trying to convey from their side of the argument based on how they've been taught.

How do you know that image hasn't changed at some point?

Seeing beyond the curve would offer you a pinpoint sky and no horizon at the pinpoint.

who taught you your dome view?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I know, but I suspect he just had one about the bridges and doesn't want to let on, so we're back to ripples and whatnot

The bridge has no answers that make explanations tangible.
It's a case of " oh they take curvature into account" and that's that.
Odd answers like, "they have to be closer at the bottom than the top or it wouldn't work" and "they need to know how to span and take this into account."

The reality is they simply build towers plumb and thicker at the base than the top but each section meets the plumb centre all the way to the top.

 

[legend7]

How do you know that image hasn't changed at some point?

People, normal day to day people, have been photographing and sharing photos of it for years, people study it professionally and also as a hobby, it would be noticed pretty quickly if things had changed.
But you know that.

 

[Pancho]

who taught you your dome view?

He studied at the University of Youtube.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

From down at our coast???

It depends on the day but take a look at many instances. Some are in this thread. There's plenty if you google or whatever.

He will ignore the bridges bit now as it's something that can be easily visualised.

Or he will resurrect the debate from earlier in the year where he was disputing concept of tangent and normal lines

Nobody offers anything that makes any argument.

 

[Pancho]

The bridge has no answers that make explanations tangible.
It's a case of " oh they take curvature into account" and that's that.
Odd answers like, "they have to be closer at the bottom than the top or it wouldn't work" and "they need to know how to span and take this into account."

The reality is they simply build towers plumb and thicker at the base than the top but each section meets the plumb centre all the way to the top.

No it's simply that you don't understand a fairly simple concept because you are mathematically illiterate.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Didn't he argue that right angles didn't exist too or something equally as ridiculous

Nope, I argued a point and it became that which is ok by me.

 

[payne]

He studied at the University of Youtube.

Youtube = no right angles

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It all seems a lot of effort to make up things like astronomy, build telescopes all over the world, have all the worlds airlines, pilots and shipping companies lie to us
then all the world military must be on board as well

Not really when most people have no real clue as to what Earth is except what they are told it is supposed to be.

also have all the worlds opposing countries be in on the lie as well , so china, russia and the usa governments all agree to keep this a secret from us all when they can agree to even the simplest of things normally

Or they're all run by one overall power and sectioned off as and when. Maybe..eh...or not in most people's minds.

nasa the european space agency, russian, chinese and indian space programs...all set up for no reason, do the people that work there just sit around and do nothing?

It depends on who the people are and what it is they're tasked with. Compartmentalisation and a need-to-know setup.
A football club can have millions of fans all over the known Earth but how many truly know what goes on at the very top of those clubs, even past the boardroom?

I have been to the johnson space centre in texas..stood by a saturn 5 rocket...saw all the people working there...and all of its just a ruse?


who gains??

You stood beside a big model.
It offers no proof of the flight of it into space just like the rest of the models but your tour guide will offer you that scenario and that tour guide has been trained to regurgitate just like you can do after the tour guide puts all that into your head and all others who visit.

The media is the same. They regurgitate what's handed down to them from the top.
Scripts.

If you think none of that can happen then you can go on to accept whatever is given out and I have no issue with any of that because generally, we're all hanging onto stories of some description.
The issue is in whether we can know if those stories go on the fact or fiction shelf....or maybe something in between.

So in his mind the Romans didnt exist and Hadrians Wall is a fake
I dont think Ive ever witnessed a more ignorant human being than this buffoon

Your words, not mine.

 

[payne]

Not really when most people have no real clue as to what Earth is except what they are told it is supposed to be.


Or they're all run by one overall power and sectioned off as and when. Maybe..eh...or not in most people's minds.

It depends on who the people are and what it is they're tasked with. Compartmentalisation and a need-to-know setup.
A football club can have millions of fans all over the known Earth but how many truly know what goes on at the very top of those clubs, even past the boardroom?


You stood beside a big model.
It offers no proof of the flight of it into space just like the rest of the models but your tour guide will offer you that scenario and that tour guide has been trained to regurgitate just like you can do after the tour guide puts all that into your head and all others who visit.

The media is the same. They regurgitate what's handed down to them from the top.
Scripts.

If you think none of that can happen then you can go on to accept whatever is given out and I have no issue with any of that because generally, we're all hanging onto stories of some description.
The issue is in whether we can know if those stories go on the fact or fiction shelf....or maybe something in between.

Your words, not mine.

You really are so paranoid. It's frightening.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There’s many reasons depending on the type of bridge being constructed.

A difference in length which increases the further up the tower means construction materials need to be designed and built to compensate for this.

You have thermal expansion to take into consideration. If it’s a wire suspension bridge for example, the stress in the wire is known. If the design does not take into account the difference, it’s possible the wire is under or over stressed (over stressed being a worse case). The suspended roadway is then likely to not be in it’s designed place. Other factors such as the determination of force at the connection between the wire and the pier will have a differing angle and this can cause failure or premature wear.

Bridge designers have an obligation to undertake a safe design and this is absolutely taken into account for the reasons stated above plus many more.

I have no issue with the bridge building.
None of what you say offers anything that puts forward any reality of taking curvature into account.

Then you have the spin, "Why can't we feel it?". We spin at half the speed of an hour hand on a clock which we can't see move, and if you put an ant on it, it doesn't get flung off.

And then when it suits the argument we are told the Earth bulges at the equator because it spins so fast and creates that bulge which then slightly flattens the poles.

Yous see the contradictions are many and massively flawed to all hell.

 

[DPTT]

The bridge has no answers that make explanations tangible.
It's a case of " oh they take curvature into account" and that's that.
Odd answers like, "they have to be closer at the bottom than the top or it wouldn't work" and "they need to know how to span and take this into account."

The reality is they simply build towers plumb and thicker at the base than the top but each section meets the plumb centre all the way to the top.

You must be logged on to see external links

Do you disagree with this article?

 

[Hend79]

Your words, not mine.

Well no, as you claim the Earth is only 1000 years old. So they are your words you absolute clown.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You never managed to answer why it doesn’t happen all the time and why only in that place. Why does it never happen across the north sea? Why does it only happen in certain weather conditions?

Atmospheric magnification and less atmospheric agitation will offer a clearer path into distance.

Wasnt even down at the coast in this one single place on earth. It was up a large sand dune, only late evening when the sun was at a certain angle in certain weather conditions.

If the light gets back to you you'll see objects within at distance. Distances that cannot be seen if we were on a globe.
8 inches per mile squared sees to that.

 

[Hend79]

To be honest you are an absolute insult to the astronauts who died in the Challenger disaster. An absolute arrogant disrespectful clown.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I have no issue with the bridge building.

You would if you tried to build one without taking the curvature into account.

 

[Hend79]

Atmospheric magnification and less atmospheric agitation will offer a clearer path into distance.

If the light gets back to you you'll see objects within at distance. Distances that cannot be seen if we were on a globe.
8 inches per mile squared sees to that.

Wrong, like you have been constantly in this thread. You have been shown numerous experiments that prove your theories wrong but you do the equivalent of "Not listening, cant hear you!"

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Tbf, I've been to Hadrian's wall and it's only a few feet high with gaps all over it. Can't see that keeping an army of angry Scots out, and if it did then they must've been absolutely useless.

The soldiers in those days were only 1mm tall against the might of the Newcastlearianationists who were on average 6 feet 7 and we're all nicknamed the Pope-arites.