• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


Nukehasslefan said:
For anything to fall, its dense mass must be placed into a higher atmosphere and can be squeezed/pushed against more than the resistance below can stop it.
This is why objects fall faster or slower or float depending on their dense mass against the push back against that dense mass.

Think of each molecule as layers within layers. The more layers the more dense the molecule is.
Let's assume gold. The make-up of gold would be very dense molecular layers making up the nugget or bar or whatever. It is very dense because of this.
It's not very porous and can also displace a lot of atmospheres, allowing little to be part of it.

Then you have water at the other end of the scale. It is made up of varying molecules and minerals but not layered anywhere near the dense mass of gold.
Then you have an atmosphere that can hold even fewer layers at sea level and even less as the stack is built up and all of the differing densities due to the layers inside the molecules which are themselves layers and stacked as a mass all the way to the top.


What it holds and the amount within the stacking system.
Think of this below as a highly dense molecule.
No, imagine one with less layering and so on and so on.
You must be logged on to see external links

Now imagine them in a stack with different layers and interlinked as those layers are broken down due to expansion and being crushed up by denser molecules below and around.
You must be logged on to see external links

And yes this is a pyramid shape but I could make it much wider and offer the top as layers along the stack instead of the one at the top. This is to offer you the idea and reasoning behind it.
Take from it what you will.


You're looking up at a dome and from an area. You will see many images and not see the reflection because your eyesight just isn't good enough to see that distance.

I've more than given it. What you do with it or take from it is not my cocnern.

Have you ever looked through a window at night with nothing in the background outside of that window? I'm guessing you have.
What do you see?
Do you see what's actually inside of the window, meaning inside of the place you're standing in? It's clear glass, right?
Set against what?
Click to expand...
Your explanation doesn’t make it much clearer. Yes gold is more dense but in a gold bar it is uniformly dense.

Let me ask another way. Are you happy that the atmosphere is 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen and 1% other stuff? If you go higher where the atmosphere is thinner, it is still 21% oxygen but it is 21% of less stuff, so less oxygen in a cubic meter of air on a mountain top than at sea level, and the amount of nitrogen is also lower.

I.e. same oxygen molecules further down just packed closer together?
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
Eyesight. Do not overestimate it.
Click to expand...
Ok, so rather than contemplate the very real possibility that you're wrong about this, you're prepared to stand by your claim that this...

Logon or register to see this image

... shows star trails to the left and their mirror image on the right?

Besides the fact that as we can clearly see that it is not, that would cause a few problems elsewhere in your domeland.
Even if that sort of reflection were possible on the inside of a dome it would put the opposite sides of that dome significantly closer together than your theory would allow. Why are the reflections of those points of light not so far away as to be invisible? After all, doesn't the sun vanish from view at a much closer range in your world? It would also put the central projector area well within visible range. It would also mean we should be able to see the stars of the Southern hemisphere too and quickly determine that they are not mirror images of those to the North.

And then...
Nukehasslefan said:
Eyesight. Do not overestimate it.
Click to expand...
So it's all a result of those shitty eyes is it?
Despite being able to see as far as both opposing sides of the dome at once. Despite being able to resolve not only those tiny points of light but on a good night the relatively minute points of light that we're told are the moons of Jupiter, we can also see their reflections, which unless we're at dome central, will have to be infinitely smaller than the originals. Yet we're unable to see the Sun as it vanishes off into the near distance, going from full size and fully visible to too far away to see in exactly as long as it takes for the actual Sun to sink below the very real and in no way imaginary horizon.

And lets not forget, that all clumsily sidesteps the established and easily verifiable star maps that are freely available to anyone who wants to look. Used by millions, proven to be inaccurate by none. By all means try, you will learn something in the process, even if it's only that those are definitely not reflections.
 
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Try to explain this in terms of a naturally occurring projector...
Logon or register to see this image

...paying particular attention to showing how/why the stars to the right curve the opposite way to the ones on the left.

You could easily learn to do this and verify it for yourself if the truth mattered to you more than your Faith.

You must be logged on to see external links

More info on there than you'll ever need, more than you'll probably care to look at, but there you go.
Click to expand...

That image is tremendous. And without reading the article or any more posts on here, I postulate that given sufficient time, you could calculate your latitude based on the star trail which has no curve.
You’d need a time lapse camera, several years and the ability to capture images from several locations.
 
Kevj said:
That image is tremendous. And without reading the article or any more posts on here, I postulate that given sufficient time, you could calculate your latitude based on the star trail which has no curve.
You’d need a time lapse camera, several years and the ability to capture images from several locations.
Click to expand...
Tops your banana one I'm afraid :lol:
 
Kevj said:
That image is tremendous. And without reading the article or any more posts on here, I postulate that given sufficient time, you could calculate your latitude based on the star trail which has no curve.
You’d need a time lapse camera, several years and the ability to capture images from several locations.
Click to expand...
Yes, especially if the pole star is visible in the pic. There are diagrams in the article showing roughly what patterns of trails to expect when looking in each direction for both hemispheres.
You dont need a time lapse camera, almost any will do. If you cant do long exposures you can do lots of consecutive shots and stack them together in one image to get the same result.
 
Last edited:
The Snockerty Friddle said:
Yes, especially if the pole star is visible in the pic. There are diagrams in the article showing roughly what patterns of trails to expect when looking in each direction for both hemispheres.
You dont need a time lapse camera, almost any will do. If you cant do long exposures you can do lots of consecutive shots and stack them together in one image to get the same result.
Click to expand...

Someone in this thread previously mentioned that the curvature of the earth isn’t a parabola, but indeed a sine wave. The trails to the left and to the right of the straight line trajectory will be (unless I’m wrong) follow the same mathematical principles.
Someone in this thread previously mentioned that the correct formula for calculating the curvature of the earth isn’t a parabola, but indeed a sine wave. The trails to the left and to the right of the straight line trajectory will be (unless I’m wrong) follow the same mathematical principles.
 
Last edited:
Kevj said:
Someone in this thread previously mentioned that the curvature of the earth isn’t a parabola, but indeed a sine wave. The trails to the left and to the right of the straight line trajectory will be (unless I’m wrong) follow the same mathematical principles.
Someone in this thread previously mentioned that the correct formula for calculating the curvature of the earth isn’t a parabola, but indeed a sine wave. The trails to the left and to the right of the straight line trajectory will be (unless I’m wrong) follow the same mathematical principles.
Click to expand...
If you could take a shot of the same star at the same time every day for a year I think it would trace out a sine wave, but daylight and that pesky globe get in the way for most of that year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top