Nukehasslefan
Winger
You would see what's emanating from the centre more clearly by looking closer to those reflected lights if you had a decent scope at those heights.
-
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
DaveH
Striker
That is a good point, if I understand what you are getting at correctly.
In reality earth there is a limit to how far you can see because of the curve of the earth. This is clearly a problem for flat earthers, so their explanation is that light just gives up. It has a limit to how far it can travel to the point of not just being dimmer but stop altogether, an effect we call night time.
So this raises the question, how far can fantasy light travel? What is the furthest distance we know it can apparently travel? Well it can come from projection central, up to the dome, reflect off the dome and reach us, so that is pretty far.
It is therefore logical that if you used a high altitude balloon, rocket, or plane, then you would massively reduce the distance the light is travelling, and you have the advantage of thinner atmosphere. So it should be reasonable to expect that you can see the central projector. You get up there and you can see for miles around the disc, but due north there is this massive glow in the earth. This has never happened, why?
Now if the accepted model was true, then it becomes simple maths based on a circle and a few straight lines to predict the limits of what you can see and then test it. When you do, reality observations fit exactly what is predicted by maths, same as the scenario I have been talking about for the height of polaris and the same as the scenario of planetary of comet obits. All these calculations using circular geometry as their basis are both apparently quite wrong and there to hide the truth, yet work 100% perfectly. How odd. I've not seen a conspiracy theorist explain this one yet.
I’ve been away last week with work. Last time I did the trip, it was 9.5 hours and took the north route over Siberia. Due to the issues with Russia, the route now heads south and over the Black Sea, skirting below Russian territories and is two hours longer. On a flat map, is shouldn’t make a difference, but on a globe, it’s significantly longer.
At times this thread may well be a complete waste of everyone's time, but it's spurred me on to read up on a few associated topics.
For example I now know that all international air and sea route travel plans are based upon the principle of the great circle.
It's obvious when you think about it, but previously I hadn't.
DaveH
Striker
Way way back, I brought up similar. The flight from Australia to South America becomes the longest possible flight on a flat earth. It goes over the northern hemisphere and the north pole and to arrive in the stated times, would have to go faster than any commercial aircraft…far faster. The likes of flight radar or passengers on the plane itself never record the passage over Europe on this trip.
The response was that would the passengers really know and also there is special wind propelling the flight to crazy speeds. This wind, doesn’t affect north bound planes in Europe on the same trajectory for that stage or even South America to Australia flights. That has an equal and opposite special wind at the exact same time. Flight radar data is faked to keep up the lie and the special wind conveniently works on planes to maintain the image of a globe.
It is times like this where I really question the person. Surely it has to be a wind up? Can anyone seriously sit there and see such an inconvenient but simple truth and come up with this? Surely not, but then why be so persistent if you don’t really believe? That then gets you into the whole so entrenched in something, you can’t stop and say, oh hang on a minute…
Aviation fuel (any fuel for that matter) isn’t cheap and no business would decide to take the longer and more costly route unless other factors come into play.
I’ve spent hours watching the in flight maps pondering this very point, whilst looking out of the window at the vast swaithes of frozen Siberia.
Ah, but I bet frozen Siberia always looks flat.
You must be logged on to see external links
Last edited:
We could also link flight time to the jet stream. Heading east is always faster than coming back west (in the northern hemisphere) which is perfectly aligned with the coriolis effect. But that might get in the way of someone’s narrative.
DaveH
Striker
It looks bigger and brighter in the sky. Odd that.
Someone turning up the intensity of the Jupiter crystal?
The evidence is all around is in so many things.
Most distances on earth, we can travel and verify ourselves. There is all sorts of transport making those trips and people constantly measuring them, especially over land. Bear in mind that you can start at the north west tip of France and drive up to Norway and northern Russia to Sibera, down to Southern Africa, Eastern China, India, and south west into Malaysia. That is a massive proportion of the world's land masses that have been travelled with wheels on road (or train tracks) for a long long time. It is fair to say we can trust those distances.
If you picked every major city and wrote it's name on a ball, then cut a small pole to scale, to the distance between each city and it's 5 nearest neighbours and stuck it to the ball, then you would gradually build up a network of cities. The model you are making would not lie flat. They naturally form a ball sort of shape. Odd that.
Last edited:
3.142
Striker
But in this alternative world, light doesn't travel, it is instant.
payne
Striker
It instantly gives up in certain places
nahwee
Winger
Nukey?
Final part of Professor Dave's Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science mini series.
In this one he absolutely dismantles the conspiracy theory angle.
In this one he absolutely dismantles the conspiracy theory angle.
You must be logged on to see media items
Nukehasslefan
Winger
But all you're doing is writing a city on a ball. It offers you exactly that but does not offer you anything like what reality may well be.
Why has nobody flew up to ISS to prove its not real if its only a few miles away?
DaveH
Striker
It is the distances between cities I was talking about. Perhaps I didn’t explain it well. Small marble sized balls to represent each city. Use scaled accepted and well measured distances between them as the connecting poles. The structure will not lie flat.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Do you know what it is in terms of you actually knowing?
Again you're offering it based entirely on a globe and accepted distances based entirely on a globe, so basing what you say on that then it's pretty obvious it can be said to be whatever is offered in theory. However, in practice, we have no way of knowing based on that.
Last edited:
That wasn't the question.
If its fake as you say, why hasn't one of your fellow numbskulls not organised a flight or a balloon to prove this, a few miles is nothing distance wise.
DaveH
Striker
More importantly, how does it stay up? It never comes down to refuel, the aerodynamics are all wrong and it doesn’t have aerofoil wings. It is there whizzing around the sky fast and efficiently with an entirely new form of propulsion and fuel we could really make use of.
Why did the team who invented it say “lets keep this from the masses and decide to make a fake space station for a laugh”?
