Put a flat earthier into space

[payne]

No like most of your "proofs" you introduced it
It originally came me from Rowbotham and he got it wrong.
You have just been parroting what you learned from your appeals to authority and are not confident enough in your position to admit your error

I wonder if he thinks the flat earthers who beleive the sun moves around the sky like a hovering light are wrong and only making appeals to that version of flat earth authority because as we all know the sun in from projection central?

 

[Kevj]

8 inches per mile squared, yes I did but it was not my workings and I never said it was.

Did he really?

Lots of stuff I use is a variation of my thinking and appeals to others. I accept this and I simply ask you to accept that this is what you go by, which is why we're debating and gaining no traction.
It comes down to each individual as to how they see any reasoning whether that's based on mainstream ideals or outside-of-the-box thinkers.

Off your box thinker.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Not frustrated, more fascinated at the levels of lying you are willing to go. It really is a skill pf some sort.

That depends on whether any of it is lies or truths or potential truths or misconceptions and whatnot.
The thing is you may be offering lies unbeknown to you but arguing for them as if they're the truth.

It's a conundrum we all have to solve.

 

[payne]

That depends on whether any of it is lies or truths or potential truths or misconceptions and whatnot.
The thing is you may be offering lies unbeknown to you but arguing for them as if they're the truth.

It's a conundrum we all have to solve.

No. You are simply lying at every turn.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I wonder if he thinks the flat earthers who beleive the sun moves around the sky like a hovering light are wrong and only making appeals to that version of flat earth authority because as we all know the sun in from projection central?

I believe many alternate thinkers could be wrong but I respect what they believe to be potentially correct in their minds.
I could be as wrong in many of the theories I have and I could be barking up the wrong tree with any theories from others that I maybe think have some traction.

One thing I do not believe I'm not wrong on is Earth not being a globe we supposedly walk or sail upon. I'm 100% sure of this.

Off your box thinker.

Off, out, aside...whichever way people want to see it.

No. You are simply lying at every turn.

Said with zero proof and I'm happy with that.

 

[Nobby]

It comes down to each individual as to how they see any reasoning whether that's based on mainstream ideals or outside-of-the-box thinkers.

Not when the "out of the box thinker" resorts to lies

 

[legend7]

Simple observations that offer no curvature.

So no calculations thought not.
Simple is an appropriate word when it comes to you.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Not when the "out of the box thinker" resorts to lies

No lies from my side.

 

[payne]

I believe many alternate thinkers could be wrong but I respect what they believe to be potentially correct in their minds.
I could be as wrong in many of the theories I have and I could be barking up the wrong tree with any theories from others that I maybe think have some traction.

One thing I do not believe I'm not wrong on is Earth not being a globe we supposedly walk or sail upon. I'm 100% sure of this.

Off, out, aside...whichever way people want to see it.

Said with zero proof and I'm happy with that.

The proof is in every sentence you type. You've been shown direct quotes from yourselves which show you are arguing both sides, changing your mind and then denying it. 8 inches per square mile proves it stone dead that you're lying.

 

[What A Waster]

Said he done experiments with superfluid.

Denied it.

Shown many times he had said it.

"Show me where I've said it".


Introducted 8 inches per square mile as an argument.

Denies it.

Pointed out many times he has.

Now claims he never said it and it's incorrect.


Etc etc

Canny funny

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

You see, on one hand, you can't use a pair of bridge towers as a yardstick to curvature and then argue against the scopes.
So many contradictions for global explanations come into play and this is just another.

And you cant use the curve of the Earth to prove the Earth doesn't curve. The contradiction here is yours.

This is why I used a crosshair on a scope to take away that field of vision argument. You know this.

Which is what makes it so ridiculous as it only disproves your point. They dont meet because of the curve.

It's one of many things that prove no globe.

It proves there is no curve.

No, it actually doesn't. It is absolutely 100%, not a globe.

It proves the opposite.

It doesn't matter how far the alignment is out, even over a short distance like a bridge and tower as has been told. If they offer a following of a supposed globe then each tower should be angled away from the other as we are told..

Which they are. As we are told. Many times

So setting up two scopes and using the pinpoint from the crosshairs when aimed at each other perfectly level then they would not meet.

Because the towers are angled away from each other. As we are told.

You don't need bridge towers you could do it on the deck and offer a small distance to each scope on the ground. If the crosshair hit then your Earth is not a globe.

Scale

You can argue slight angles or too small to measure as much as you want but the reason for the pinpoint is to highlight a meeting or a miss with them.

So how do you conclude that missing the crosshairs = flat Earth?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The proof is in every sentence you type.

Not all but there's lots of it when people put their mind to it.

You've been shown direct quotes from yourselves which show you are arguing both sides, changing your mind and then denying it.

Nope. That's your way, not mine.

8 inches per square mile proves it stone dead that you're lying.

It proves we do not live on a globe, I agree.

 

[BigPete]

He has to be trolling you all.. nobody is that stupid.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Said he done experiments with superfluid.

Nope, not me.

Denied it.

Because I didn't say I'd done it.

Shown many times he had said it.

Not once.

"Show me where I've said it".

Show me.

Introducted 8 inches per square mile as an argument.

Funny how it was argued with the water eperiment. Is it now not valid to you?

Denies it.

I do not deny offering it into the topic but it's not my calculation.

Pointed out many times he has.

Never denied.

Now claims he never said it and it's incorrect.

Wrong.

Etc etc

Canny funny

It is canny funny.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It wasn't me that mentioned a parabola.

It was, you just didn't know it.
You 8 inches per mile squared formula IS the formula for a parabola.

8 inches per mile squared, yes I did but it was not my workings and I never said it was.

So it was an appeal to authority
and wrong.

 

[fyl2u]

The banana proved nothing.

Nope. I'm offering a valid argument

Wrong.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And you cant use the curve of the Earth to prove the Earth doesn't curve. The contradiction here is yours.

I'm using any curve of any Earth that is offered and showing it cannot be so.
I'm showing the opposite.

Which is what makes it so ridiculous as it only disproves your point. They dont meet because of the curve.

It proves my point to me and anyone who takes the time to see outside of the global mindset.

Because the towers are angled away from each other. As we are told.

Scale

So how do you conclude that missing the crosshairs = flat Earth?

If crosshairs are missed it shows a curve if both are the same height and same level.
We don't see any of that and for good reason. Earth is not a globe.

 

[payne]

It was, you just didn't know it.
You 8 inches per mile squared formula IS the formula for a parabola.

So it was an appeal to authority
and wrong.

He should know not to offer up appeals to authority as its the golden rule. He should admit he appealed to authority on the 8 inches thing. It would give him a chance to be honest for the first time on the thread.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It was, you just didn't know it.
You 8 inches per mile squared formula IS the formula for a parabola.

Nope.

So it was an appeal to authority
and wrong.

8 inches was not started by anyone other than a globalist and retracted because it destroyed the argument.

 

[DaveH]

Absolutely not.


Which is all that's required. Simple and to the point (pardon the pun).

And you can offer that as many times as you feel the need to and it becomes valid to you, not to me but feel free to carry on with whatever suits you.

It's pretty simple as to what to expect.
We're told bridge building takes a global curvature into account.
Any two uprights placed into the ground at a level start to the same height will come under the same conditions of a lean back away from each other, no matter how small it is over a short stretch.
A level scope set up on each side facing each other with a pinpoint of a crosshair should miss the scope even at the smallest of angle changes over a short distance.



What you would be looking at is two scopes facing each other and both by line angling upwards, not just one angling upwards.
I think millimetres would be in the many rather than the few.
Once you veer off level your angle becomes more and more veered each way to where they would intersect towards the centre of that angled line of sight and they would not be anything like straight so would offer an easy miss to each scope crosshair pinpoint.

Nahhh. It would be detectable quite easily but it isn't detectable because we simply do not live on a globe which is why it can be just argued away as supposedly undetectable but yet detectable when it suits bridge spans that nobody can measure with any detail due to the way they're built, as in wider at the bottom and thinner at the top which would offer the natural wider gap at the top than the bottom and is easily offered as an argument to those who wish to follow that.

It's not me that offers a parabola, it came from your side. I think Dave offered it for his calculations from his supposed global horizon, somehow.

The scopes as you say makes it a really difficult way to do it. First of all most scopes don't have cross hairs. You are obsessed a bit with this, but hey. How about if the experiment was modified? You are talking about measuring laser precision so what do you think if we had a laser on one tower and a large white board on the other? If the earth is flat then the laser should point towards the bottom of the board at the same height your laser mount is at. If the earth is a globe then the laser should point higher than that predicted dot.

Does that sound like a reasonable modification?