Put a flat earthier into space

[legend7]

Ok, but you did offer it. Anyway, no probs.

You offered that you had done superfluid experiments but can't share or describe.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I know the point he is making and you are missy, but you need to figure it out yourself, you can't be relying on what I say can you?

Any idea?
I don't see why you're using a football being kicked into the air when I'm talking about a line of sight over a globe as we're told Earth is.
Use a circle if you want.

You offered that you had done superfluid experiments but can't share or describe.

Keep trying.

 

[Nobby]

Any idea?
I don't see why you're using a football being kicked into the air when I'm talking about a line of sight over a globe as we're told Earth is.
Use a circle if you want.

The gift that keeps on giving

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The gift that keeps on giving

Any idea or?

 

[Nobby]

Any idea or?

As I said I can see the point being made and your inability to see it is comedic gold.

But you cant rely on my observations you have to figure it out for yourself

 

[Nukehasslefan]

As I said I can see the point being made and your inability to see it is comedic gold.

But you can rely on my observations you have to figure it out for yourself

I'll take it you don't know and we'll go from there.

 

[Nobby]

I'll take it you don't know and we'll go from there.

Is that you trying a different approach to get me to explain what you are missing?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Is that you trying a different approach to get me to explain what you are missing?

No, we can move on I'll accept your stance.

 

[DaveH]

And what I'm saying is, if you see a cratered moon face like we are shown then the Earth should be littered with craters where it's blocked so many from hitting and any hitting the face we are shown should come in at an angle and not show just craters but should show skimmed area from the angle of incoming, yet we see nothing like that.

So are you saying that a crater can only form on the surface of the moon, if an asteroid hits it at exactly a perpendicular angle? Do you know what perpendicular means and does it always have the same meaning?

Aye, and how many times has it changed for you or was this just a one-off?

Read the thing you quoted

What book from 200 years ago describes a parabola?

I believe it was in the flat earth bible where you got your lemon squeezer earth from. Where ever it came from, it was bollocks.

Show me.

There's no breakthrough. I stand by what I'm saying and your parabola offers nothing realistic.

For the last time, it is not my parabola. Do you know what a parabola is and it is your sodding rule? You are the one keep repeating it and I've consistently said it is bollocks. You say the drop to the horizon is 8" per mile squared and I say that is wrong. So do we both now agree that the "rule" is complete bollocks?

 

[legend7]

Keep trying.

Well you did say you had, it's been proven, again.
Then you go quiet then flit off on a different subject.
As if a knacker like you has done superfluid experiments

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So are you saying that a crater can only form on the surface of the moon, if an asteroid hits it at exactly a perpendicular angle? Do you know what perpendicular means and does it always have the same meaning?

Not at all.
I'm talking about Earth and the moon's face as we are told. The rest is irrelevant to this discussion.

Read the thing you quoted

I believe it was in the flat earth bible where you got your lemon squeezer earth from. Where ever it came from, it was bollocks.

It's irrelevant where you think I got anything from.

For the last time, it is not my parabola. Do you know what a parabola is and it is your sodding rule?

You mentioned the 8 inches per mile squared is incorrect and it works by using a parabola. Explain it because you mentioned you'd calculated it. I just want to know how you managed it and what you used as your starting point.

Consider we are looking at a level line of sight and back to the vertical of a ball that's supposedly a globe, so now you explain your parabola from that point rather than from the point of throwing a ball into the air and having it act in a parabola, which is not the argument.

You are the one keep repeating it and I've consistently said it is bollocks. You say the drop to the horizon is 8" per mile squared and I say that is wrong. So do we both now agree that the "rule" is complete bollocks?

I say nothing at all about any drop to any horizon.

 

[BigPete]

 

[payne]

The gift that keeps on giving

It's amazing isn't it.

 

[BigPete]

I just want to know how you managed it and what you used as your starting point.

As do we all with your superfluid experiments.

 

[payne]

Not at all.
I'm talking about Earth and the moon's face as we are told. The rest is irrelevant to this discussion.

It's irrelevant where you think I got anything from.

You mentioned the 8 inches per mile squared is incorrect and it works by using a parabola. Explain it because you mentioned you'd calculated it. I just want to know how you managed it and what you used as your starting point.

Consider we are looking at a level line of sight and back to the vertical of a ball that's supposedly a globe, so now you explain your parabola from that point rather than from the point of throwing a ball into the air and having it act in a parabola, which is not the argument.

I say nothing at all about any drop to any horizon.

This is amazing.

 

[legend7]

As do we all with your superfluid experiments.

Yeah it's very one way the demand for evidence or explanations.
Wonder why that is......

 

[BigPete]

You must be logged on to see external links

Launch today

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[High Entropy]

Gonna smash through the dome this afternoon with a big rocket !

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I don't see why you're using a football being kicked into the air when I'm talking about a line of sight over a globe as we're told Earth is.
Use a circle if you want.

The irony!

You mentioned the 8 inches per mile squared is incorrect and it works by using a parabola. Explain it because you mentioned you'd calculated it. I just want to know how you managed it and what you used as your starting point.

It doesn't work by using a parabola, 8 inches per mile squared is the formula for a parabola.

Consider we are looking at a level line of sight and back to the vertical of a ball that's supposedly a globe, so now you explain your parabola from that point rather than from the point of throwing a ball into the air and having it act in a parabola, which is not the argument.

I say nothing at all about any drop to any horizon.

No-one (other than you, incorrectly) is using a parabola to explain anything, as you'd have known long ago if you didn't just reject whatever anyone told you.

What book from 200 years ago describes a parabola?

Absolutely priceless given that you've spent this entire thread quoting from it and trying to enforce its rules regarding "appeals to authority" which come from the same place.

Self tucked?

 

[BigPete]

The irony!

It doesn't work by using a parabola, 8 inches per mile squared is the formula for a parabola.

No-one (other than you, incorrectly) is using a parabola to explain anything, as you'd have known long ago if you didn't just reject whatever anyone told you.

Absolutely priceless given that you've spent this entire thread quoting from it and trying to enforce its rules regarding "appeals to authority" which come from the same place.

Self tucked?

Drowning in superfluid