Put a flat earthier into space

[Pancho]

Just get it over with for crying out loud.

And put you out of your misery?

Not a chance.

 

[chelt_mackem]

And how can I do that without using what's been offered?

What video?
Show me how you worked it out to prove a globe.

You must be logged on to see media items

6:10 onwards in this video is an interesting demonstration of how known distances work on the globe model, but fall apart on any other.

This video, it's even on the exact same page of the thread.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And put you out of your misery?

Not a chance.

I'll do it for you.

 

[chelt_mackem]

I'll do it for you.

Is this a new conspiracy theorists' tactic, get yourself banned from the discussion so that you can simultaneously avoid awkward questions whilst also claiming to have been silenced?

 

[Pink Panther]

Nobody's arguing about adding numbers together.
The argument is offering numbers to fit a globe reality and there are none.

Bollocks, addition is what we've been taught and can't be trusted.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Is this a new conspiracy theorists' tactic, get yourself banned from the discussion so that you can simultaneously avoid awkward questions whilst also claiming to have been silenced?

Not at all.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Bollocks, addition is what we've been taught and can't be trusted.

He's choosing not to understand how the distances disprove the flat earth.

 

[fyl2u]

He's choosing not to understand how the distances disprove the flat earth.

It's possible that he genuinely doesn't understand, considering how he has already demonstrated that he doesn't understand basic geometry.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It's possible that he genuinely doesn't understand, considering how he has already demonstrated that he doesn't understand basic geometry.

True, but his level of understanding always goes down when faced with something a bit problematic for his flat world.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

He's choosing not to understand how the distances disprove the flat earth.

How do they?

True, but his level of understanding always goes down when faced with something a bit problematic for his flat world.

I don't see anything as problematic coming from a global mindset, except problematic for a globe.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

How do they?

If you had a square where all corners were 100 miles apart, then found the distance to the centre was 100 miles from each corner.... you know your surface is not flat....right?

 

[chelt_mackem]

Not at all.

Excellent, so your thoughts on calculating the distances across Australia then?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

How do they?

I don't see anything as problematic coming from a global mindset, except problematic for a globe.

Just like I don't see Newcastle because I'm not going to look at it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If you had a square where all corners were 100 miles apart, then found the distance to the centre was 100 miles from each corner.... you know your surface is not flat....right?

Ok.

Excellent, so your thoughts on calculating the distances across Australia then?

I have no clue how to do that personally.
How would you do it personally?

Just like I don't see Newcastle because I'm not going to look at it.

If you don't see something then you can't calculate anything based on it because you simply do not know it exists.

 

[Pink Panther]

He's choosing not to understand how the distances disprove the flat earth.

He is definitely choosing what to believe.
Essentially he's saying "if we ignore all of the proof, you can't prove anything".

 

[chelt_mackem]

Ok.

I have no clue how to do that personally.
How would you do it personally?

If you don't see something then you can't calculate anything based on it because you simply do not know it exists.

The video I linked to shows how I would work it out. How I would then test it would be to travel there and verify it. The point the video ably demonstrates is that the method only works on a globe, if the Earth were flat, the results would be different.

So how do you counter the fact that on this thread, we have a method for working out the distance across Australia and a poster who has done the journey and can verify it to be true?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

He is definitely choosing what to believe.
Essentially he's saying "if we ignore all of the proof, you can't prove anything".

No, I'm actually not saying anything of the sort.

What I am saying is, if there is a proof then it can't be ignored, unless it's hidden.
In the case of a global spinning Earth and all the so-called space stuff, there's no proof but there is plenty of stories and pictures and videos showing what we're told.

From a personal point of view for any of you arguing against me, you're not in possession of anything other and certainly not in possession of known facts relating to those stories and whatnot but you can argue by majority acceptance based on all of it.
The problem is, it offers you no traction against me, other than mass opinion.

The video I linked to shows how I would work it out. How I would then test it would be to travel there and verify it. The point the video ably demonstrates is that the method only works on a globe, if the Earth were flat, the results would be different.

Explain what you see in the video.

So how do you counter the fact that on this thread, we have a method for working out the distance across Australia and a poster who has done the journey and can verify it to be true?

I haven't seen any proof of working any distance out across Australia that offers a globe, except you saying it, which offers nothing.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Ok.

So armed with that knowledge go back and re-read post #14209

If you don't see something then you can't calculate anything based on it because you simply do not know it exists.

So given that you don't see or understand how the apparent motion of the stars , the equinoxes, the pole star and all the rest proves we are on a globe, you're unable to dismiss them or make any assumptions based on them.

 

[Hend79]

No, I'm actually not saying anything of the sort.

What I am saying is, if there is a proof then it can't be ignored, unless it's hidden.
In the case of a global spinning Earth and all the so-called space stuff, there's no proof but there is plenty of stories and pictures and videos showing what we're told.

From a personal point of view for any of you arguing against me, you're not in possession of anything other and certainly not in possession of known facts relating to those stories and whatnot but you can argue by majority acceptance based on all of it.
The problem is, it offers you no traction against me, other than mass opinion.

Explain what you see in the video.

I haven't seen any proof of working any distance out across Australia that offers a globe, except you saying it, which offers nothing.

What is the diameter of your fantasy flat Earth?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So armed with that knowledge go back and re-read post #14209

So given that you don't see or understand how the apparent motion of the stars , the equinoxes, the pole star and all the rest proves we are on a globe, you're unable to dismiss them or make any assumptions based on them.

Yeah I've looked, what's your point