Put a flat earthier into space

[Hend79]

You have a choice to take what's told you by what you believe is an authority...as truth or you can question it. You seem to choose the former and I understand why.

1. Majority is easier and much much more comfortable to follow.
2. Authority and mainstream ideals are much easier to accept regardless of whether there is a truth knowable from them.
3. It can offer anyone a pedestal in their mind that they feel is much higher than any pedestal a minority opposing debater stands on.

Okay so you have questioned hundreds of years of evidence that we live on a globe. Give us evidence the Earth is flat please. And when I say evidence I mean evidence actually collected by experts in the field, not experiments where you have sat in your bath tub playing with a spirit level

 

[DaveH]

so it can't be proven then, cameras are tools of the mass authority secret cabal of fish eye lens fame

One I love is where any picture of the earth looking curved is a fish eye lens, so why has nobody ever thought of sending up a camera without a fish eye lens. One bit of footage was of a self made balloon launch and you could clearly see at launch it was not fish eye. Oh dear I thought. Nope all fine. The atmosphere high up distorts any camera lens into a fish eye lens. Said with real confidence.

Yeah atmosphere init, seems to explain a lot.

 

[Kevj]

It would take nothing to add a crosshair to any scope.

Aye, just draw it on with a felt tipped pen. I’m sure that will satisfy the rigours of a fully accurate and calibrated optical device.

 

[Nobby]

Today is one of those classic days in the thread where the bar of lunacy is raised (or is it lowered) to a whole new level

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What about the quote where you said you had done superfluid experiments.......we still haven't cleared that one up

It's very clear to me that I didn't say I'd done them. I said I'd done experiments, but I didn't specify all of those experiments. I hope this clears everything up for you. If not then feel free to start again.

So if someone sent a so called satellite into so called space and took a picture of the so called globe... that only counts as proof if you watched them build and launch the satellite, flew into space with it, and took the picture yourself?

If the person says they actually physically did everything that was said above they can then tell all and sundry what they said they did but all and sundry have to rely on entirely that person's story.
Where would finding that truth be?
It comes down to a belief system based on one person's story being passed down to another.

If a majority believes it and a minority does not, then who is correct in arguing for facts? It comes down to appealing to authority for the majority.
The minority are well within their rights to question it and dismiss it until sufficient proof comes from the story, otherwise, it becomes just that.

You actually think you're wise and some sort of open minded sage, don't you. It's funny and worrying in equal measure.

That depends on what you deem as being wise and open-minded.

That's the long and short of it. I'm going to build a rocket in the back garden using superfluid 4 star petrol and blast into the some.

Good luck.

What you choose to believe in has no bearing whatsoever on what is actually true.

It may well be that case and the same applies to yourself. This is why we're debating issues.

The problem is, people are not simply appealing to authority.

In terms of what's being argued I'd say they certainly are.

Plenty of people are capable of thinking for themselves and making observations and reasoned decisions.

I agree but to offer facts without knowing them to be so and using other people's storylines as their facts are appealing to authority.

You seem unable or unwilling to credit them with this.

I'll credit anyone with anything in any argument if they offer proof.

Plenty have given their reasons for believing we live on a globe.

And I have absolutely no issue with people doing so. I've given reasons as to why we don't.
We all do not accept what the other side says as fact and this is why the debate goes on.
The majority crowd around a minority resistance does not offer that crowd factual reasoning and a higher pedestal of factual reality but it does offer each individual a comfort blanket of a belief system they are part of in terms of acceptance of so-called facts based on it.

Plenty have given reasons and simple observations you could make if you chose to, while you have given two things, (water level and pinpoint scope views) both of which disprove your own claims.

What I've offered proves to me the Earth is not a spinning globe. What you or others decide against it is what you offer as your proof against it.
The debate rumbles on because appeals to authority offer nothing to kill off the debate.
And here we are.

 

[Kevj]

What I've offered proves to me the Earth is not a spinning globe.

What you have offered doesn’t prove anything. Indeed, by your own admission, it’s your musings. Your opinion. There’s no science based facts in your arguments, nothing which is put forward by you which others can replicate to then agree with you, which would open the door for genuine discussion on this subject. You are by definition a charlatan and nothing more.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You must be logged on to see media items

Do you think this is fake @Nukehasslefan ?

100%.

It would be very similar to the lake experiment.

How was that one manipulated?

How wasn't it?

Go back 4 pages and he was happy to repeat that his rule does offer a parabola. Just as I say well done for learning something he is back to saying it doesn't.

Seems to have done a complete U-turn. Or should that be graphing -x^2 rather than x^2?

I offered no parabola.

Aye, just draw it on with a felt tipped pen. I’m sure that will satisfy the rigours of a fully accurate and calibrated optical device.

Use all kinds of ways to put one on and if done with a bit of care it will be accurate enough to offer reality to the situations arising in this argument.
Nobody needs to buy expensive equipment to disprove a globe.

What you have offered doesn’t prove anything. Indeed, by your own admission, it’s your musings. Your opinion. There’s no science based facts in your arguments, nothing which is put forward by you which others can replicate to then agree with you, which would open the door for genuine discussion on this subject. You are by definition a charlatan and nothing more.

A lot of what I say is based entirely on hypotheticals/musings/theories. But some are based on in-your-face reality and utter clear logic which is denied by those who believe water curves around a ball.

To you, I may be a charlatan and many more names. You are welcome to that thought process and have my blessing, even though you do not require it.
But then we have to wonder who the real charlatans are and who are arguing from appeals to them.

presumably then with the earth being flat, all the knowledge we have about the earths magentic field are wrong as well,

Yep.

which means even the simplest of devices like a compass dont work even though every one uses them and the simplest of navigation techniques using one are entirely proven

Nope. It means they work by other means.

 

[taipeisafc]

Aye, just draw it on with a felt tipped pen. I’m sure that will satisfy the rigours of a fully accurate and calibrated optical device.

And of course each scope would be able to see the crosshairs on the other scope with ease - well known that snipers use the cross hairs in their opponents scopes as a target as you can shoot him through the eye and gain "Hollywood kill" points. It is almost like he is suggesting an impossible experiment to prove something.

What you have offered doesn’t prove anything. Indeed, by your own admission, it’s your musings. Your opinion. There’s no science based facts in your arguments, nothing which is put forward by you which others can replicate to then agree with you, which would open the door for genuine discussion on this subject. You are by definition a charlatan and nothing more.

He has a whole new definition of proof - any made up drivel is now proof.

 

[Kevj]

And of course each scope would be able to see the crosshairs on the other scope with ease - well known that snipers use the cross hairs in their opponents scopes as a target as you can shoot him through the eye and gain "Hollywood kill" points. It is almost like he is suggesting an impossible experiment to prove something.

Even a top of the range Leica theodolite which is designed for this type of work has limitations.

I nearly posted a picture of the ‘through the scope’ kill. It’s his lack of understanding of the fundamentals of what he is purporting as plausible that makes the whole situation ridiculous.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Blah blah blah

There is no rumbling debate. It gave up any pretence of debate when you demanded proof and refused to consider the plentiful proof given.
You have no intention of even trying to understand how the heliocentric model and the globe is proven by equinoxes, seasons, star trails and the Pole Star, phases of the inner planets vs the appearance of the outer planets, none of which require any appeal to authority, only the ability/willingness to look and understand what you're seeing. You have no idea how any of these things add up to any sort of proof and no intention of finding out, so don't pretend it's a debate.

If this was about asking questions and finding truth you would by now have an equatorial sun-dial, you would have been out taking star trail photographs and studying the results, maybe even checking out Venus with a telescope, but instead you're arguing that a tangent proves the circle is a straight line and desperately trying to defend a half baked appeal to authority passed off as of your own theory.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There is no rumbling debate. It gave up any pretence of debate when you demanded proof and refused to consider the plentiful proof given.
You have no intention of even trying to understand how the heliocentric model and the globe is proven by equinoxes, seasons, star trails and the Pole Star, phases of the inner planets vs the appearance of the outer planets, none of which require any appeal to authority, only the ability/willingness to look and understand what you're seeing. You have no idea how any of these things add up to any sort of proof and no intention of finding out, so don't pretend it's a debate.

It can be anything to you and anyone else that follows whatever path they choose.
It's a debate to me regardless of what you decide it is to you.
And once again you have zero proof for a spinning globe. Absolutely none.
You may choose to accept the stories which are entirely your prerogative but offering them to me as a proof is a reliance on appeals to authority. I know you don't like me saying that but this is what it is.

If this was about asking questions and finding truth you would by now have an equatorial sun-dial, you would have been out taking star trail photographs and studying the results, maybe even checking out Venus with a telescope, but instead you're arguing that a tangent proves the circle is a straight line and desperately trying to defend a half baked appeal to authority passed off as of your own theory.

What moves over the sky is mapped with sundials and even points of light navigation.
Not a spinning globe also rotating around a massive sun and all the rest of the (in my opinion) nonsense.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It can be anything to you and anyone else that follows whatever path they choose.
It's a debate to me regardless of what you decide it is to you.
And once again you have zero proof for a spinning globe. Absolutely none.
You may choose to accept the stories which are entirely your prerogative but offering them to me as a proof is a reliance on appeals to authority. I know you don't like me saying that but this is what it is.

What moves over the sky is mapped with sundials and even points of light navigation.
Not a spinning globe also rotating around a massive sun and all the rest of the (in my opinion) nonsense.

If you had any understanding of what you're saying, you wouldn't be saying it.

Did you not see the line "none of which require any appeal to authority"?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If you had any understanding of what you're saying, you wouldn't be saying it.

I know what I'm saying and I am saying it.
If you realised Earth wasn't a globe you wouldn't be saying what you are saying.
See how easy this is?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I know what I'm saying and I am saying it.
If you realised Earth wasn't a globe you wouldn't be saying what you are saying.
See how easy this is?

Yeah, I know you have no arse because I have never seen it.... same sort of thing?
You can bleat on about no proof all you like but until you look at the proof you're not really in a position to say.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yeah, I know you have no arse because I have never seen it.... same sort of thing?

And this comes down to what can be accepted as a potential fact but to argue this point, I may not have one, yet many can suggest otherwise based on seeing many people with them.
I can accept you have 2 arms two legs and two ears but I would be basing that on what's considered common acceptance of the overall majority of humans, yet we all know this would not be the case with all humans.
It comes down to speculation based on massively stacked odds against it.

You can bleat on about no proof all you like but until you look at the proof you're not really in a position to say.

I absolutely agree and the very same applies to you.
I can accept many things as my proof but I have to actually know a proof to be able to believe it. Two different scenarios.

Many factors come into play in terms of what people accept or believe without proof.
This is why this is a debate even if you take a higher pedestal entirely based on the majority comfort blanket.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

And this comes down to what can be accepted as a potential fact but to argue this point, I may not have one, yet many can suggest otherwise based on seeing many people with them.
I can accept you have 2 arms two legs and two ears but I would be basing that on what's considered common acceptance of the overall majority of humans, yet we all know this would not be the case with all humans.
It comes down to speculation based on massively stacked odds against it.

Regarding your arse, yes, but the things I listed above.... no. They will all show you all the proof you need if you are prepared to look. You are not.

I can accept many things as my proof but I have to actually know a proof to be able to believe it. Two different scenarios.

I know, and you're not prepared to even try to understand how the things I listed offer proof because they prove you wrong.

Many factors come into play in terms of what people accept or believe without proof.
This is why this is a debate even if you take a higher pedestal entirely based on the majority comfort blanket.

No. I'm not talking about accepting without proof, I'm talking about not rejecting the proof until you understand it. You have no idea how star trails and equinoxes prove you're on a globe but are willing to discount them purely because they will disprove your fabled dome.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Regarding your arse, yes, but the things I listed above.... no. They will all show you all the proof you need if you are prepared to look. You are not.

Prepared to look where?
Give me one simple example without appealing to authority.

I know, and you're not prepared to even try to understand how the things I listed offer proof because they prove you wrong.

I try to understand lots of things. That they do not suit you is not my problem.

No. I'm not talking about accepting without proof, I'm talking about not rejecting the proof until you understand it.

If I knew it to be proof I certainly would not reject it. Until I know it's proof I'm well within my rights to question it and/or reject it based on what's on offer at that specific time, until something resembling proof is deemed closer to acceptance from me.

What proof can you offer from yourself, without actually appealing to authority, in terms of what we're debating or arguing or whatever it is you think is happening?

You have no idea how star trails and equinoxes prove you're on a globe but are willing to discount them purely because they will disprove your fabled dome.

I can offer that to you. Unless you can explain why they do it without appealing to authority.

 

[GingerNick]

A compass works by other means?

You do know you can use a magnet on a pin to magnetise it, stick it in a floating Cork and make your own, one of the simplest physics experiment in the world

How do yours work? Magic?

 

[Nobby]

What proof can you offer from yourself, without actually appealing to authority

Still waiting for anything you have done to prove the earth is not a globe

 

[fyl2u]

I offered no parabola.

You've offered a parabola repeatedly throughout this thread every time you've said "8 inches per mile squared". You're just too mathematically illiterate to realise you've been doing it.