Put a flat earthier into space

[fyl2u]

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

The level of his mathematical and scientific illiteracy, anyway.

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.

FAIL

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Maybe. I call it questioning everything and believing nothing that cannot be directly proven but also accepting things that offer some feasibility.
Accepting and believing are two entirely separate mindsets.

Call it rejecting everything that has been tested, proved and accepted and replacing it with made up shite that has no basis in reality. That'd be closer to the truth.

 

[fyl2u]

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.

Nobody offers anything that makes any argument.

WRONG

 

[payne]

Call it rejecting everything that has been tested, proved and accepted and replacing it with made up shite that has no basis in reality. That'd be closer to the truth.

The stuff that's feasible to him is incredible. It's a shame he can't calculate any of it though.

 

[fyl2u]

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.

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.

Liar.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You must be logged on to see external links

Do you disagree with this article?

Absolutely because I absolutely know we do not live on a globe.
It's an easy thing to say about tops being farther apart than bottoms but nothing is taken into any account.
People mention cables and road spans wouldn't be able to be connected properly but tolerances will always need to be made for many issues, including expansion.

Let's put it this way. It's an argument that none of us will ever solve. It's one side saying one thing against another and neither has any proof. I mean let's face it if we're told water can curve then any story is possible.

I still see no real argument for it.

 

[legend7]

Over a few hundred years basically.
Nothing in the overall setup.

You're told it's a cement-like/powder surface and a rock structure full of craters that happen to be facing the Earth.
What made them? Were people throwing rocks at them from Earth?

On a serious note, what's the story behind that?

The alternative is the moon is a plate that's been arced on from the central energy of the sun and is projected into the sky and reflected back off the dome which acts like a large mirror and we see a sort of holographic image from that centre. IMO.

Also I'm assuming this reflection moves around the dome as people in different timezones and countries see it at different times.
But also spookily on this ever moving background the craters look the same in every single area the reflection bounces off too.
It was hard enough to believe if it was static on a changing background but even less so if it moves around, which it must in your world

 

[fyl2u]

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

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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

I've never claimed anything of the sort so again, your words but you feel free to offer anything you like up and I'll respond as and when..

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

Trying to use emotion as your argument renders the discussion over with.

 

[fyl2u]

Piece-by-piece research.

Youtube
Flat Earth websites
More Youtube
Flat Earth channels on Facebook
Memes
More Youtube

 

[legend7]

Let's put it this way. It's an argument that none of us will ever solve. It's one side saying one thing against another and neither has any proof. I mean let's face it if we're told water can curve then any story is possible.

The proof is that bridges work being built using these calculations, if the calculations were wrong they wouldn't work. That's your proof.
You mentioned your years of research again, yet you won't share any of it to try and convince us, very strange wouldn't you say if you have lots of research evidence to back up your musings....

 

[payne]

I've never claimed anything of the sort so again, your words but you feel free to offer anything you like up and I'll respond as and when..

Trying to use emotion as your argument renders the discussion over with.

You've been told @Hend79

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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

Not at all.
Plumb pillars and level roads, unless the design has to be altered for the sea craft to go under and whatnot.

 

[fyl2u]

Over a few hundred years basically.
Nothing in the overall setup.

You're told it's a cement-like/powder surface and a rock structure full of craters that happen to be facing the Earth.
What made them? Were people throwing rocks at them from Earth?

On a serious note, what's the story behind that?

The alternative is the moon is a plate that's been arced on from the central energy of the sun and is projected into the sky and reflected back off the dome which acts like a large mirror and we see a sort of holographic image from that centre. IMO.

Cheeses wept.

 

[DPTT]

Absolutely because I absolutely know we do not live on a globe.
It's an easy thing to say about tops being farther apart than bottoms but nothing is taken into any account.
People mention cables and road spans wouldn't be able to be connected properly but tolerances will always need to be made for many issues, including expansion.

Let's put it this way. It's an argument that none of us will ever solve. It's one side saying one thing against another and neither has any proof. I mean let's face it if we're told water can curve then any story is possible.

I still see no real argument for it.

So they actually built the bridge using those calculations for a laugh then

 

[Kevj]

Absolutely because I absolutely know we do not live on a globe.
It's an easy thing to say about tops being farther apart than bottoms but nothing is taken into any account.
People mention cables and road spans wouldn't be able to be connected properly but tolerances will always need to be made for many issues, including expansion.

Let's put it this way. It's an argument that none of us will ever solve. It's one side saying one thing against another and neither has any proof. I mean let's face it if we're told water can curve then any story is possible.

I still see no real argument for it.

Imagine being prepared to make this much of a public arse of yourself in a bizarre attempt to wind strangers up online.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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!"

I've been shown zero.
I've been told to believe stories that the person offering relies on as factual without actually knowing them to be factual.
Being told this en masse does not constitute facts.

Meaningless collection of words

I agree, with you and many others if you can't see what I'm getting at, which is understandable considering we differ massively in our Earth mindset.

 

[fyl2u]

Absolutely because I absolutely know we do not live on a globe.
It's an easy thing to say about tops being farther apart than bottoms but nothing is taken into any account.
People mention cables and road spans wouldn't be able to be connected properly but tolerances will always need to be made for many issues, including expansion.

Let's put it this way. It's an argument that none of us will ever solve. It's one side saying one thing against another and neither has any proof. I mean let's face it if we're told water can curve then any story is possible.

I still see no real argument for it.

FAIL

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This bit is true enough, but the tops are still further apart due to the curvature.

In your opinion and the opinion of many like you. I 100% disagree.

 

[fyl2u]

The proof is that bridges work being built using these calculations, if the calculations were wrong they wouldn't work. That's your proof.
You mentioned your years of research again, yet you won't share any of it to try and convince us, very strange wouldn't you say if you have lots of research evidence to back up your musings....

Water level nails it.
Spirit level in the bath.
Spirit level on a raft.
Nails it.

Not at all.
Plumb pillars and level roads, unless the design has to be altered for the sea craft to go under and whatnot.

Level roads that wouldn't be long enough if they were the same length as the distance between the bases of the pillars.