Put a flat earthier into space

[DaveH]

I'm not ignoring distances and travel times.
I'm asking for proof they work based on a globe reality or something else.

To be fair nobody's washed away any of my theories.
They've offered what they think but that's it.
I'd say my sandcastle not only holds back the water but gets stronger as it's hit.


Opposite each other. I never mentioned the opposite side of the centre.

Tell you what, trying to describe how a map works is getting nowhere. So, why don't you provide a map of your world, we will start to stick some distances on it and then we can test if it works or not?

If you have nothing to hide and are confident in your map then there is nothing to lose.

Either it will work or it doesn't, and we can work on agreeing why it does or doesn't work later.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If we can get to the dome, it'll likely be roughly a parabola shape, so we'll get to use our favourite formula to help work out its size.

Cell.

 

[Pink Panther]

I know man, nor machine can get near to the centre but can we get to the edge to do a lap to work out dome size?

Fiction is the only thing that prevents us.

 

[legend7]

Opposite each other. I never mentioned the opposite side of the centre.

You did say they weren't in fundamentally different spots to the lemon squeezer map.
South america and Australia, opposite sides.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Tell you what, trying to describe how a map works is getting nowhere. So, why don't you provide a map of your world, we will start to stick some distances on it and then we can test if it works or not?

If you have nothing to hide and are confident in your map then there is nothing to lose.

Either it will work or it doesn't, and we can work on agreeing why it does or doesn't work later.

The map is simple.
Your globe was made out of it.

The UN map may offer you a clue.

You did say they weren't in fundamentally different spots to the lemon squeezer map.
South america and Australia, opposite sides.

I said the orange squeezer map was to give you an idea. I said the map isn't how I have it.
You know this.

 

[DaveH]

The map is simple.
Your globe was made out of it.

The UN map may offer you a clue.

I said the orange squeezer map was to give you an idea. I said the map isn't how I have it.
You know this.

Please can you just post an image of exactly the map you think we should look at?

No point in me picking one, working out the scale, only for you to tell us we picked the wrong one. What do you think accurately represents a map of the world you think you live in? Show us your stuff and don't just appeal to authority for something on a plate.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Please can you just post an image of exactly the map you think we should look at?

No point in me picking one, working out the scale, only for you to tell us we picked the wrong one. What do you think accurately represents a map of the world you think you live in? Show us your stuff and don't just appeal to authority for something on a plate.

You've been offered a clue, go with it or don't.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

The UN map may offer you a clue.

The sky offers you a clue to how wrong you are but you don't understand it.
Perspective would show you're wrong, if you understood it.
Equinoxes show how wrong you are but you don't understand them.
Geometry shows you're wrong but it seems you've invented your own version.
Visible curvature shows beyond all doubt that you're wrong so you just deny that it exists.
Countless people have seen it over hundreds of years but you just dismiss them.
Common sense should tell you how wrong you are about your carbon arc projector but....

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The sky offers you a clue to how wrong you are but you don't understand it.

Nah, it doesn't. It should offer you a clue as to how wrong the spinning globe carry-on is.

 

[Pink Panther]

The sky offers you a clue to how wrong you are but you don't understand it.
Perspective would show you're wrong, if you understood it.
Equinoxes show how wrong you are but you don't understand them.
Geometry shows you're wrong but it seems you've invented your own version.
Visible curvature shows beyond all doubt that you're wrong so you just deny that it exists.
Countless people have seen it over hundreds of years but you just dismiss them.
Common sense should tell you how wrong you are about your carbon arc projector but....

But water stays flat if you jump on a train going 50 arcs per time.

Nah, it doesn't. It should offer you a clue as to how wrong the spinning globe carry-on is.

Shit trolling.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Nah, it doesn't. It should offer you a clue as to how wrong the spinning globe carry-on is.

It does.
Show how a naturally occurring projector could possibly display what is clearly and provably visible to us in the sky and the only thing you will prove is that you don't understand what is clearly and provably visible to us in the sky.
Your carbon arc projector theory cannot begin to recreate what we can see.
Even if it came close, it couldn't reproduce the effects of the angled axis in orbit which you clearly don't understand so please have a go at describing how it could.

Even if it could come close to reproducing those things, why on Earth would it create the appearance of spherical planets in orbit around the Sun along with our Earth?

Just for a laugh?

 

[Pancho]

The UN map may offer you a clue.

The UN logo is based upon the azimuthal equidistant projection of the globe earth.

 

[BigPete]

The UN logo is based upon the azimuthal equidistant projection of the globe earth.

Had to google that never heard of it before

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It does.
Show how a naturally occurring projector could possibly display what is clearly and provably visible to us in the sky and the only thing you will prove is that you don't understand what is clearly and provably visible to us in the sky.

Maybe it might be better to try and understand how an atmosphere can stay on a spinning ball in a space vacuum as we're told.
The globe looks good and the CGI of it is very good.
The models are good to look at.
The issue is in trying to pass it off as a reality.
That's where it becomes silly when time is taken to see the offerings from it.

Your carbon arc projector theory cannot begin to recreate what we can see.

Because you don't get it.

Even if it came close, it couldn't reproduce the effects of the angled axis in orbit which you clearly don't understand so please have a go at describing how it could.

What angled axis?
The angled axis is on a model and in CGI, not in real life.

Even if it could come close to reproducing those things, why on Earth would it create the appearance of spherical planets in orbit around the Sun along with our Earth?

It doesn't, because they're not spherical.

Just for a laugh?

I think it's a bit more than just for a laugh but I would imagine some of it has had those at the top falling about with laughter.

 

[Pancho]

Had to google that never heard of it before

I have Professor Dave's lectures to thank for that snippet.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The UN logo is based upon the azimuthal equidistant projection of the globe earth.

Now reverse it.

 

[Pancho]

Now reverse it.

To what end?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

To what end?

The reasoning.
Instead of it being a projection of a globe, maybe it's been turned into a globe but reversed as if it was a globe turned into a circle.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Maybe it might be better to try and understand how an atmosphere can stay on a spinning ball in a space vacuum as we're told.

No that would only serve to avoid having to answer a question you cant possibly answer

The globe looks good and the CGI of it is very good.
The models are good to look at.
The issue is in trying to pass it off as a reality.
That's where it becomes silly when time is taken to see the offerings from it.

Meaningless shite to distract

Because you don't get it.

There's literally nothing to get. It cant exist. If it did it couldn't produce what we see.

What angled axis?
The angled axis is on a model and in CGI, not in real life.

The angled axis that causes our seasons.
But you know that.

It doesn't, because they're not spherical.

They clearly, visible and provably are.

I think it's a bit more than just for a laugh but I would imagine some of it has had those at the top falling about with laughter.

A. You're an idiot
or
B. You're on the worst wind up ever, trying to convince us you're an idiot

 

[legend7]

The map is simple.
Your globe was made out of it.

The UN map may offer you a clue.

I said the orange squeezer map was to give you an idea. I said the map isn't how I have it.
You know this.

Then I asked you this screenshot and you replied ?

So on your raised done lemon squeezer, pretend it's a clock face, if the bottom of South america is 12 o clock, where is Australia in relation to it number wise?

You must be logged on to see external links