Nukehasslefan
Winger
And this adds more fuel to your investigation.
The more you take from what I say the more you can convince yourself of what you want.
Whichever way you go I have absolutely no issue with it.
Good luck with what you're after.
-
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
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
The more you take from what I say the more you can convince yourself of what you want.
Whichever way you go I have absolutely no issue with it.
Good luck with what you're after.
payne
Striker
Do you know that for a fact? Sounds to me you heard it from authority. Authority is the key in all of this. Look deeper.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
All the evidence for what?
Make it specific.
The reason I'm asking is, that I could ask if the sun is a big ball of fire nearly 1 million miles in diameter and 93 million miles into a space vacuum and someone can offer me a box and say " all the evidence I need is inside of it."
What would I expect to find? A model or paper telling me a story? A paper with " look up"....?
Offer me something.
Why does our vanishing point look like a line then rather than erm a point where the limit of our vision merges centrally.
Why doesn't the line go vertically for instance?
DaveH
Striker
So smaller molecules at sea level that are smaller because they are squished tighter together, is that right?What does uniformly dense mean in terms of what I'm putting forward?
If you mean do I feel the need to question it, then no, it's not something that needs to be high on my list.
There's less of everything the higher you go. The pyramid should tell you that.
Layers to a dome top would naturally decrease in horizontal layers if you observe the pyramid diagram.
Molecules at sea level are much more densely packed and compressed.
As I said. It's a dome and what you see on Earth under it will vary depending on where each person is standing.
It's not like you can look in the sky and immediately see a mirror image of what's in the sky much farther than you.
But you are aware the points of light do get seen in a different orientation as you go farther afield into what you think is a southern hemisphere, just as the moon reflection is shown upside down...and so on.
And atmosphere.
As in, how?
Whatever's reflected is in the realms of what we see. In my opinion.
You're simply thinking they're millions and billions of miles away and light years away and are trying to gauge stuff based on those thoughts.
The stuff these people fill us with is sci-fi fantastical but it really does beggar belief and makes me do this on a regular basis.
The horizon is simply the vanishing point to your eyes. It becomes a theoretical line or an imaginary line.
Points of light maps are fine. They help navigation around the circle under the dome.
Why should they be inaccurate?
Very possible in this Earth and even on other similar Earths outside of this one.
Maybe. If it is somehow possible.
I can think of the potential.
Not quite as primitive but you could well be on the right lines, even though it was tongue in cheek with you.
There's lots of stuff on this topic. Go through it and you'll get a better idea of what's what from my side.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
It does go vertically as well as horizontally. It just comes down to the actual area under view.
Looking down a railway track between trees for instance would offer you a theoretical vanishing point.
Looking out to sea offers you the horizon (theoretical) line because sky to ground light differs back to your eyes whereas horizontal distance remains virtually similar, left to right creating that line.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Yes, but don't forget to add extra layers within them as they become denser.
To make this easier to understand from my side.
Think of an interlinked bunch of circles as in the pyramid diagram.
Now also imagine those circles having circles pushed inside. Think of the gobstopper analogy.
It comes down to how many layers are within each molecule and under whatever pressures they're under.
If we look down a railway track we still see a line between land and sky, the horizon?
Sky to ground light differs to our eyes, explain?
DaveH
Striker
Ok, so what makes the molecules smaller and pushes them closer together?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Add in trees as I said and you create your own vanishing point. Fictional angles are vertically and horizontally to your sight limit for that view at that particular time based on whatever light reflects back from whatever is in that vicinity to distance.
Their own resistance to whatever is above and beside.
So on this image the tracks to go to a central vanishing point but yet the sea and sky still form a linear line how does that work?
Surely seen through the same eyes they would do one or another?
You must be logged on to see external links
Your second point is just words not an explanation, can you explain your second reply to a layman like myself?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Your tracks are not at a vanishing point. The sea becomes your theoretical horizon line.
The vanishing point to that, or shall I say vanishing line is sea to sky. Darker to lighter converged.
Your rail line just ends and if you want to argue for a horizon with that then it offers you another smaller horizon line of a solid (lighter) reflected ground to a darker sea that reflects less to your vision, creating two horizon lines of land to sea and then sea to sky.
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
Oh I don’t know, just off the top of my head... the box could contain a camera, a star map, an equatorial sundial and the willingness to learn something.
Last edited:
But the tracks are converging to a central point yet the horizon and visible land doesn't?
Explain?
How does this tie in with this below that you said, can you explain it simpler and properly please?
"Fictional angles are vertically and horizontally to your sight limit for that view at that particular time based on whatever light reflects back from whatever is in that vicinity to distance."
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Ok, so what does that offer to me about a spinning globe from this exact point?
It seems it offers navigation.
I presume you're offering a timelapse with the camera to see points of light moving over the sky.
It offers nothing to suggest a spinning globe or a space vacuum.
If you think it does then let's see you use that very stuff from the box to guarantee you your spinning globe and light year stars and such-like.
Remember you're standing with nothing. No help other than to work out what you've been given with the box and to what it proves, not what someone told you it proves.
taipeisafc
Striker
We are heading down a whole new path of made up drivel here. I wonder what he thinks a molecule is.
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
So you missed that little bag of "willingness to learn something"?
Learn to use the camera and the star map and the equatorial sun dial and all the proof will be in your hands. If it was possible for me to explain it to you it would be doubly pointless as you'd reject it out of hand and it would be your own appeal to authority.
If you lie on your side the horizon is still the same horizon though
Last edited:
