Put a flat earthier into space

[Pancho]

It is not about the tracking map. You going on about Santa is your attempt at deflection that you can't answer what it is, because the truth is inconvenient for you.

You can't go out and see Santa as I said. You can look in the sky and see the ISS. What bit of this are you failing to understand.

The globe is closer to reality because in 2D, certain distances have had to be stretched to be able to lay it down. If you take the distances people travel and have measured between major cities and join them together in a model, that model will not lie flat.

Can you please press him on the great circle principle.

I've just recently learned about it and I wanted to show off, but he won't answer me as he thinks I'm setting a trap for him or something.

Southern hemisphere flight times always have them squirming as well.

Oh, and the coriolis effect while you're on.

 

[Hend79]

Yes if you flatten out the ball and offer in some concavity and convexity towards outer and inner respectively, then you simply fly from point to point on each area of that setup.

Doesn't it make you question everything when you're told 80% of people live north of your globe, with very little land south of it?

More gobbledegook that doesnt explain anything or answer the question. How can something on the Earths surface be further away than the actual diameter of the Earth if its flat?

A lot of land mass south of the equator arent in temperate climate zones therefore arent comfortable for setting up populated areas

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The stars are proof. You can't offer any explanation for what can be observed in the sky (that actually works) for the different hemispheres.
Your denial of facts is also proof of your trolling, as, to put it simply, nobody can be as stupid as you are pretending to be.

What exactly are you observing in the sky that guarantees you a globe?
Trying to use the trolling and wum argument is pointless and offers you nothing.

Ah I see, you don't understand again. The arc isn't being offered (whatever that's supposed to mean).

How about you actually watch the video, then explain why it doesn't work, since I've explained why it does.

You offered an arc.
How about you explain it then?

Solely on the evidence of your postings this thread that's patently arrant nonsense.

As Professor Dave succinctly stated, every flat earther he'd encountered, assuming they weren't simply conmen running flat earth sites for financial gain, were to a man, deluded narcissists, mathematically illiterate and with a complete inability for logical thought or to comprehend scale or think in three dimensions.

You're obviously more than welcome to take the word of someone offering ridicule to alternate theorists but your argument is based on simply believing what he says. It offers you nothing as proof and you know this.

This is you down to an absolute tee and to be honest the writing was on the wall very early on in this thread with your complete lack of understanding of the tertiary education system.

You're an almost perfect exemplar of the Dunning Kruger effect.

You can feel free to call me anything you feel like. It doesn't make you correct but it does offer you something to throw.

So you could confidently explain the apparent motion? You have looked into how the globe in orbit is clearly demonstrated by the seasons and equinoxes?
You have no clue as to how either of those show a globe and even less of an idea how they can be explained without one.

They simply do not show a globe. You're told they do and you accept that manipulation.

He's simply googled the Earth's circumference and doubled it, imagining that this will free up enough scope for his nonsense to escape any troubling inconveniences such as reality.

I didn't double any circumference. I said diameter.

 

[Pink Panther]

What exactly are you observing in the sky that guarantees you a globe?
Trying to use the trolling and wum argument is pointless and offers you nothing.

You are asking for answers that have already been provided, which is an example of your trolling.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It is not about the tracking map. You going on about Santa is your attempt at deflection that you can't answer what it is, because the truth is inconvenient for you.

All I'm saying is, that you can be told many things, Santa tracking being one thing. Yes, we all know it's for kids to believe they can track Santa but it doesn't just have to end at duping kids.
We can all be duped into many things as long as we can't physically verify anything different to what's offered.

You can't go out and see Santa as I said. You can look in the sky and see the ISS. What bit of this are you failing to understand.

And you can't go and see the ISS but you can be shown something on video and pictures and you can look up to see a random dot of light or you can see something that is offered to you at a specific location and time that you may think is a space station. the reality is, you do not know for sure.

The globe is closer to reality because in 2D, certain distances have had to be stretched to be able to lay it down.

Stretched on paper, yes but what it all means over a big Earth can be another thing altogether

If you take the distances people travel and have measured between major cities and join them together in a model, that model will not lie flat.

Why not?

 

[What A Waster]

What exactly are you observing in the sky that guarantees you a globe?
Trying to use the trolling and wum argument is pointless and offers you nothing.

You offered an arc.
How about you explain it then?

You're obviously more than welcome to take the word of someone offering ridicule to alternate theorists but your argument is based on simply believing what he says. It offers you nothing as proof and you know this.

You can feel free to call me anything you feel like. It doesn't make you correct but it does offer you something to throw.

They simply do not show a globe. You're told they do and you accept that manipulation.

I didn't double any circumference. I said diameter.

From Alaska in the arctic circle, to Ushuaia at the southern tip of Argentina that distance is about 10,000 miles.

Given that you're saying the diameter of your world is 50,000 miles, then that means the radius is 25,000 miles.

So we've got arctic cicle almost to the Antarctic circle measure out at 10,000 miles give or take.

So we've now got 15,000 miles to account for. If we say 2,000 miles from Alaska to the north pole and 2,000 miles from Ushuaia to the south pole, you've still got a spare 11,000 miles. That's more than the distance from alaska, usa to the tip south of America just spare.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

From Alaska in the arctic circle, to Ushuaia at the southern tip of Argentina that distance is about 10,000 miles.

Given that you're saying the diameter of your world is 50,000 miles, then that means the radius is 25,000 miles.

So we've got arctic cicle almost to the Antarctic circle measure out at 10,000 miles give or take.

So we've now got 15,000 miles to account for. If we say 2,000 miles from Alaska to the north pole and 2,000 miles from Ushuaia to the south pole, you've still got a spare 8,000 miles. That's almost the distance from usa to the tip south America just spare.

Maybe you're forgetting the gradient to the dome foundation that would offer no life or reflected sunlight.
Further in would be where the sun hits and life exists.

 

[What A Waster]

Maybe you're forgetting the gradient to the dome foundation that would offer no life or reflected sunlight.
Further in would be where the sun hits and life exists.

Of course, how silly of me to forget that.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Of course, how silly of me to forget that.

I've mentioned the gradient to the outer just as I have to the inner. Maybe you missed it.

 

[What A Waster]

I've mentioned the gradient to the outer just as I have to the inner. Maybe you missed it.

I sort of remember it. So if you are saying the diameter is 50,000 miles, then does that mean the height of your dome over the north pole is going to be 25,000 miles high?

 

[Pink Panther]

I sort of remember it. So if you are saying the diameter is 50,000 miles, then does that mean the height of your dome over the north pole is going to be 25,000 miles high?

Either that or he's saying the world is a giant belly button.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I sort of remember it. So if you are saying the diameter is 50,000 miles, then does that mean the height of your dome over the north pole is going to be 25,000 miles high?

Not at all.

 

[chelt_mackem]

You offered an arc.
How about you explain it then?

Forget the arc, although you can use it to calculate the distance*, it's not important for this experiment. The distance between Red Rock and Leeman is 3,687km, if you had watched the video you would know this. This can be verified by travelling between the 2 places, it is also not disputed by anyone.

For this to work on a flat Earth, either the co-ordinates are wrong for at least one of the places (and therefore countless others) or the distance is wrong, which we know it isn't and even have someone on this thread who has done a very similar journey.

*(2πr/360) x 38 is the formula

So now that I have explained this to you as you requested, how about you explain to me how this known and verified distance can be true on anything other than a globe. It might help if you watch the video first to help avoid the obvious pitfalls.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Forget the arc, although you can use it to calculate the distance*, it's not important for this experiment. The distance between Red Rock and Leeman is 3,687km, if you had watched the video you would know this. This can be verified by travelling between the 2 places, it is also not disputed by anyone.

For this to work on a flat Earth, either the co-ordinates are wrong for at least one of the places (and therefore countless others) or the distance is wrong, which we know it isn't and even have someone on this thread who has done a very similar journey.

*(2πr/360) x 38 is the formula

So now that I have explained this to you as you requested, how about you explain to me how this known and verified distance can be true on anything other than a globe. It might help if you watch the video first to help avoid the obvious pitfalls.

Let's strip you to the bare skin and bones.
Tell me what you need to calculate the distance and explain how you would go about it from a global mindset.

Or at least admit your reliance on being told the distance is due to what you're told is a globe but you cannot verify it.

 

[legend7]

And you can't go and see the ISS but you can be shown something on video and pictures and you can look up to see a random dot of light or you can see something that is offered to you at a specific location and time that you may think is a space station. the reality is, you do not know for sure.

Why can't you if according to you its only "a few miles away"

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why can't you if according to you its only "a few miles away"

How do you suggest I do this?

 

[fyl2u]

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?

I love non-Euclidian geometry.

And when I say I love it, what I mean is I've heard of it and can sometimes point at it when I see it.

 

[What A Waster]

Not at all.

So you've estimated the diameter, what do you think the height is likely to be?

 

[legend7]

Also looking at your map and your earlier estimate at diameter, how aren't the bottom of South america and southern Australia nearly 50,000 miles apart?

How do you suggest I do this?

Hire a plane, why have none of your fellow loons tried to prove its not real?

 

[fyl2u]

I have no clue how to do that personally.

He's starting to admit things, lads. His reality is cracking.