Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

The diameter of the Earth is 7917.5 miles.
London to Sydney is 10553 miles.
Please explain this on your flat Earth?

The diameter of Earth is a lot more than that in my opinion.
The diameter of your globe is that as you're told but you do not know.
So given a bigger diameter then you'll also get a bigger distance over it.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Ok, I looked at it. You offer an Earth spin against a space sun. I offer the opposite to it as a moving sun around a stationary Earth, angled from the dome, so there's no difference. You do not prove any spinning globe.

No you don't, you offer a pissing reflection from a non existent projector! Have you not read your own posts?
As for me offering anything, all I offered there is a simple device which shows an effect. An effect which is simply explained by being on a spinning globe in orbit, but cannot be explained by any other shape of Earth.
Including orange squeezers.
Or projectors.

So now im a liar for believing the Earth is a globe and Im being lied to as well??

Aye it's a tough world. Flat, but tough.

 

[Hend79]

The diameter of Earth is a lot more than that in my opinion.
The diameter of your globe is that as you're told but you do not know.
So given a bigger diameter then you'll also get a bigger distance over it.

So in other words, you have no answer to the question other than whatever waffle you come up with in your own head. The diameter is 7917.5 miles, its been measured and corroborated. Do you actually have any evidence that its larger than that? Im going to guess at no, you havent

 

[DaveH]

I've been wondering this. At what point does a body of evidence all pointing towards the same conclusion constitute proof? It's actually a reasonable argument that none of the pieces of scientific evidence put forward conclusively prove the Earth to be a globe on their own, but when each additional piece of scientific evidence also points us that way, while simultaneously not debunking the claim of another piece of evidence, that's as close as we can get to conclusive proof.

The flat/cell Earth however, has not even one piece of evidence, let alone anything close to proof.

I think it is probably something along the lines of being the best explanation for something that fits all the observable evidence in the most simple way possible, where that evidence is independently verified.

So that means just because a lot of people say something, it doesn't have to be true. But that doesn't mean you should disregard that.

Take for example some of the recent discussions about distances. Do we accept the reported distances as a source of truth? Well the distance to one of the planets is a difficult one, you generally need a solar transit and perfectly timed independent observers to really start putting a scale on the solar system. You can't just nip out and do that, along with the slight inconvenience that it is around 112 years until the next transit of Venus. So there is an element of trust in that.

But then you look at something like the distance between London and Glasgow. A google puts that as 345 miles direct and 411 miles by car. Haven driven, ran, cycled and walked various distances in this country, I can believe that as being fairly accurate. You then have the amount of people who have traveled that route or done parts of that route, if it were say 600 miles, someone would have noticed. So it is fair to say that Glasgow from London is proven to be 345 miles away.

Where this sort of logic breaks down with conspiracy theorists is they might take something like that, look at all the people who have independently verified it, decide they just don't like the answer, dismiss all the evidence and claim zero proof. They might suggest another figure, like 600 miles, but then struggle to account for where the extra miles actually fit. They may agree on London to Luton, then Luton to Northampton, but sooner or later you need to find 200 miles of land unaccounted for. Quite often that would just be waved away with words and veiled insults, without actually explaining it.

I suppose this puts it on two levels. There is proof where there is overwhelming evidence and the proof an individual will accept. The reason for accepting a truth or not is not always logical.

if you think about it, if you are stood at the very north pole where its spinning on its axis, you'll just rotate very slowly 360 degrees over 1 full day. what speed is that?

Say you outstretch your hand, then that is about a meter. That makes a circle of 6.2 meters. That means 6.2/24 is 0.25 meters per hour (sorry, not a normal measurement of speed).

The main thing is to consider the angular speed. If you are right on the turning hub or out at the extremes, the earth turns once every 24 hours (roughly). That means that no matter what your distance from the axis of rotation, you turn at half the speed of the hour hand of a clock. I.e. very slowly.

 

[legend7]

If it's a story backed with no real proof then I can accept it or I can question it however way I feel and I do not have to believe it until I get proof.
Just because a majority might accept or believe a story without proof does not give them an argument for facts, just an argument based on the story told.

So you don't actually believe any of your theories because you have said in many occasions you have no proof....

It's not at all. It is what I said it is from the start.
I offered no facts but people decide I do. That's not my issue.

So all of your experiments and you still have no facts..... interesting.
That may suggest your ideas are incorrect maybe?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No you don't, you offer a pissing reflection from a non existent projector! Have you not read your own posts?

What I offer is just that. You have no need nor do I ask you to go with it. I'm just telling it from my side.

As for me offering anything, all I offered there is a simple device which shows an effect. An effect which is simply explained by being on a spinning globe in orbit, but cannot be explained by any other shape of Earth.

I fail to see how it can't be explained. A spinning globe is offered against a moving sun reflection over and around a dome.
You see the problem with your sun is, it should be enveloping the entire diameter of your ball, leaving no angles, given the soo called the size of it against the Earth you go with.
Earth should be awash and not really offering any shadows.
A local sun like mine moving over and around and reflecting back off a dome offers the shadows.
The so-called spinning Earth has been manipulated by the storytellers to cater to what is seen this is why it's had to be angled at 23.5 degrees and spun at the mph offered over various areas and all the rest of the magical mysteries put out to try to make it appear to work.

So in other words, you have no answer to the question other than whatever waffle you come up with in your own head. The diameter is 7917.5 miles, its been measured and corroborated. Do you actually have any evidence that its larger than that? Im going to guess at no, you havent

Measured by who?

I think it is probably something along the lines of being the best explanation for something that fits all the observable evidence in the most simple way possible, where that evidence is independently verified.

So that means just because a lot of people say something, it doesn't have to be true. But that doesn't mean you should disregard that.

Take for example some of the recent discussions about distances. Do we accept the reported distances as a source of truth? Well the distance to one of the planets is a difficult one, you generally need a solar transit and perfectly timed independent observers to really start putting a scale on the solar system. You can't just nip out and do that, along with the slight inconvenience that it is around 112 years until the next transit of Venus. So there is an element of trust in that.

But then you look at something like the distance between London and Glasgow. A google puts that as 345 miles direct and 411 miles by car. Haven driven, ran, cycled and walked various distances in this country, I can believe that as being fairly accurate. You then have the amount of people who have traveled that route or done parts of that route, if it were say 600 miles, someone would have noticed. So it is fair to say that Glasgow from London is proven to be 345 miles away.

I'm not arguing distance to cities and whatnot.
I've already said speed and time can offer that.
The issue is in your side saying it's done over a curvature and I'm saying over a level, especially in flight.

The main thing is to consider the angular speed. If you are right on the turning hub or out at the extremes, the earth turns once every 24 hours (roughly). That means that no matter what your distance from the axis of rotation, you turn at half the speed of the hour hand of a clock. I.e. very slowly.

Very slowly as opposed to what?
1000 plus mph at the equator we are told and less and less as it spins towards the supposed poles.
it suddenly becomes fast when the argument comes to the supposed equatorial bulge being so because of this fast spin.

So you don't actually believe any of your theories because you have said in many occasions you have no proof....

I believe my theory fits much much better than a spinning globe which I absolutely do not believe in but my theory may not be correct and I can certainly not offer it as fact.

So all of your experiments and you still have no facts..... interesting.

I have facts but those facts prove we do not live on a spinning globe.
The rest is all potential for alternates.
I don't expect you to believe anything I say. I don't expect anyone. It's up to each individual as to what they take from what I say.

That may suggest your ideas are incorrect maybe?

Absolutely it could. I could be so incorrect as to be living in a sci-fi world in my mind but then again so could you as your ideas of your world, although given to you, are still ingrained into your psyche.

I offer my own reasoning. People don't like it or dismiss it or ridicule it and that's fine. But it offers food for thought and I'm more than confident some people will actually think about it. I personally think you are more interested in it but I may be wrong about that.
You see, that's just my opinion based on how people respond to me.

 

[legend7]

I have facts but those facts prove we do not live on a spinning globe.
The rest is all potential for alternates.
I don't expect you to believe anything I say. I don't expect anyone. It's up to each individual as to what they take from what I say.

So which actual facts do you have to support some of your theories, carbon arc projector, rivers of silver and gold, icicles falling as meteors/shooting stars into a vortex that must spin both ways at the same time, let's start with those 3 fundamental ones initially.
Also you mention you don't dispute distance between cities, can you answer the question from when I drew the clock face on the lemon squeezer map, if Australia is at 12 what number appx is the tip of South america at in your world?

 

[Hend79]

You see the problem with your sun is, it should be enveloping the entire diameter of your ball, leaving no angles, given the soo called the size of it against the Earth you go with.
Earth should be awash and not really offering any shadows.
A local sun like mine moving over and around and reflecting back off a dome offers the shadows.
The so-called spinning Earth has been manipulated by the storytellers to cater to what is seen this is why it's had to be angled at 23.5 degrees and spun at the mph offered over various areas and all the rest of the magical mysteries put out to try to make it appear to work.

You do realise the sun is millions of miles away right?

Measured by who?

People far far brighter than you thousands of years ago measured it. You are too ignorant and arrogant to look into it though.

 

[payne]

You do realise the sun is millions of miles away right?

he doesn't even believe space exists. he's a nutter

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

What I offer is just that. You have no need nor do I ask you to go with it. I'm just telling it from my side.

The only way those are opposites then is in that the real, actual Sun exists, is backed by scientific fact and observation, can be seen and proven to do so whereas your reflection sun is no more than the imaginings of a paranoid fantasist. (who just happened to redefine the term 'opposite' yesterday).

I fail to see how it can't be explained.

That's not surprising is it? You didn't even consider doing the experiment let alone begin to understand the results.

A spinning globe is offered against a moving sun reflection over and around a dome.

One can be proved yet you think it impossible, one can be proved to be impossible yet you think it's the sensible option.

You see the problem with your sun is, it should be enveloping the entire diameter of your ball, leaving no angles, given the soo called the size of it against the Earth you go with.
Earth should be awash and not really offering any shadows.

If the Sun at its actual size was parked up at the edge of your non existent dome then you'd have a point.
It isn't, and you don't.

A local sun like mine moving over and around and reflecting back off a dome offers the shadows.

Not the actual shadows we can see and measure. Not possible. You'd understand this if you did the equinox shadow thing from earlier.

The so-called spinning Earth has been manipulated by the storytellers to cater to what is seen this is why it's had to be angled at 23.5 degrees and spun at the mph offered over various areas and all the rest of the magical mysteries put out to try to make it appear to work.

If every time you felt the need to say all that, you just replaced it with "stuff I don't understand" it would make more sense.

The spin was not invented to explain day and night.
The tilted axis was not invented to explain the seasons.
The orbit was not invented to explain why the whole process regularly repeats.
All of it could be simply demonstrated to, and understood by year 9 schoolchildren using a globe and a light although, contrary to what you appear to think, it quite often isn't.

Measured by who?

I'm not arguing distance to cities and whatnot.
I've already said speed and time can offer that.
The issue is in your side saying it's done over a curvature and I'm saying over a level, especially in flight.

The issue is in you rejecting it because you think it's based on a curve. The distance is just the distance. The curve only comes into it when you take several distances together and find that the only way they can all exist simultaneously is if they are placed on a curved surface.

Very slowly as opposed to what?
1000 plus mph at the equator we are told and less and less as it spins towards the supposed poles.
it suddenly becomes fast when the argument comes to the supposed equatorial bulge being so because of this fast spin.

I believe my theory fits much much better than a spinning globe which I absolutely do not believe in but my theory may not be correct and I can certainly not offer it as fact.

Good, because it's provably nonsense.

I have facts but those facts prove we do not live on a spinning globe.

You don't. Not one.

The rest is all potential for alternates.

You spelled made up bullshit wrong there.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So which actual facts do you have to support some of your theories, carbon arc projector, rivers of silver and gold, icicles falling as meteors/shooting stars into a vortex that must spin both ways at the same time, let's start with those 3 fundamental ones initially.

Ok, I'll try again.
I have absolutely no facts to support my alternate Earth theories. They are musings from which I cannot offer facts nor proof. I can only offer my musings and my own experiments offer myself a potential to the alternative to what we've been schooled into.

Also you mention you don't dispute distance between cities, can you answer the question from when I drew the clock face on the lemon squeezer map, if Australia is at 12 what number appx is the tip of South america at in your world?

You mentioned having to go over the centre to get from south America to Australia.
I told you it's off-centre.
I offered you the answer in terms of me and you facing to the left of me facing you as south America (for instance) and you to the right of centre for Australia facing me.

Basically, you are offered a straight line to your destination to or from.

You offer 12 o'clock but it would be more like 11 to 7.

You do realise the sun is millions of miles away right?

No, I do not believe that for one second.
It's utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Can you tell me how you know?

People far far brighter than you thousands of years ago measured it.

Measured what? The sun?
And where did you get your info from for this?
Do you actually know what you're saying as being fact or are you reliant on it being so?

You are too ignorant and arrogant to look into it though.

I suppose I'd be both to people like yourself but then again if I wanted to argue I could offer exactly the same back to you but why to go teet for tat with this stuff?

 

[Hend79]

Ok, I'll try again.
I have absolutely no facts to support my alternate Earth theories. They are musings from which I cannot offer facts nor proof. I can only offer my musings and my own experiments offer myself a potential to the alternative to what we've been schooled into.

If thats the case then stop with the condescending attitude. Everyone else knows we live on a globe, the evidence is there and has been for thousands of years. There is no potential for the Earth to be anything other than a globe, its all in your head and you have said yourself you have no evidence whatsoever. Your own experiments are bollocks too as you refuse to share what they are. So stop talking bollocks.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

If thats the case then stop with the condescending attitude. Everyone else knows we live on a globe, the evidence is there and has been for thousands of years. There is no potential for the Earth to be anything other than a globe, its all in your head and you have said yourself you have no evidence whatsoever. Your own experiments are bollocks too as you refuse to share what they are. So stop talking bollocks.

No, keep talking bollocks, but stop insisting that everyone else is at it too.

Him, not you, obviously

 

[legend7]

Ok, I'll try again.
I have absolutely no facts to support my alternate Earth theories. They are musings from which I cannot offer facts nor proof. I can only offer my musings and my own experiments offer myself a potential to the alternative to what we've been schooled into.

You mentioned having to go over the centre to get from south America to Australia.
I told you it's off-centre.
I offered you the answer in terms of me and you facing to the left of me facing you as south America (for instance) and you to the right of centre for Australia facing me.

Basically, you are offered a straight line to your destination to or from.

You offer 12 o'clock but it would be more like 11 to 7.

OK just in post #14706 you said this
"I have facts but those facts prove we do not live on a spinning globe.
The rest is all potential for alternates."
I'm just confused now as to whether you have facts or not.
So basically like 12 and 8 then, so what is at number six roughly?
So if south america is much closer to Australia than 12 and 6 that's quite a huge gap the other way so it must be a lot lot further to travel in one direction than the other yeah?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Everyone else knows we live on a globe, the evidence is there and has been for thousands of years.

Everyone else doesn;t know. Many people believe they know because that's what they were told.

There is no potential for the Earth to be anything other than a globe, its all in your head and you have said yourself you have no evidence whatsoever.

You have none whatsoever.
This will get boring very quickly when teet for tat is offered.

Your own experiments are bollocks too as you refuse to share what they are. So stop talking bollocks.

And you are very welcome to think that as it has absolutely no bearing on what I think.

OK just in post #14706 you said this
"I have facts but those facts prove we do not live on a spinning globe.

Yep, simple stuff like (here we go) water level, theoretical horizon line, and many other things. But remember they are my facts. What you take from them is entirely up to you.

The rest is all potential for alternates."

That's my alternate theories which come about due to the nonsense of the spinning globe...in my own opinion.

I'm just confused now as to whether you have facts or not.

I'm sure you shouldn't be after the number of times I've explained...but that's up to you.

So basically like 12 and 8 then, so what is at number six roughly?

I gave you an answer which was not what you said, so we'll leave it at that.

So if south america is much closer to Australia than 12 and 6 that's quite a huge gap the other way so it must be a lot lot further to travel in one direction than the other yeah?

It certainly would be.

 

[DaveH]

What I offer is just that. You have no need nor do I ask you to go with it. I'm just telling it from my side.


I fail to see how it can't be explained. A spinning globe is offered against a moving sun reflection over and around a dome.
You see the problem with your sun is, it should be enveloping the entire diameter of your ball, leaving no angles, given the soo called the size of it against the Earth you go with.
Earth should be awash and not really offering any shadows.
A local sun like mine moving over and around and reflecting back off a dome offers the shadows.
The so-called spinning Earth has been manipulated by the storytellers to cater to what is seen this is why it's had to be angled at 23.5 degrees and spun at the mph offered over various areas and all the rest of the magical mysteries put out to try to make it appear to work.


Measured by who?

I'm not arguing distance to cities and whatnot.
I've already said speed and time can offer that.
The issue is in your side saying it's done over a curvature and I'm saying over a level, especially in flight.

Very slowly as opposed to what?
1000 plus mph at the equator we are told and less and less as it spins towards the supposed poles.
it suddenly becomes fast when the argument comes to the supposed equatorial bulge being so because of this fast spin.

I believe my theory fits much much better than a spinning globe which I absolutely do not believe in but my theory may not be correct and I can certainly not offer it as fact.


I have facts but those facts prove we do not live on a spinning globe.
The rest is all potential for alternates.
I don't expect you to believe anything I say. I don't expect anyone. It's up to each individual as to what they take from what I say.




Absolutely it could. I could be so incorrect as to be living in a sci-fi world in my mind but then again so could you as your ideas of your world, although given to you, are still ingrained into your psyche.

I offer my own reasoning. People don't like it or dismiss it or ridicule it and that's fine. But it offers food for thought and I'm more than confident some people will actually think about it. I personally think you are more interested in it but I may be wrong about that.
You see, that's just my opinion based on how people respond to me.

If you are not arguing distances between cities, then you are accepting a complete fail of your flat earth idea. It is impossible to take the well established distances between major cities and land masses and lay them out on a 2d disc. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

 

[Hend79]

Everyone else doesn;t know. Many people believe they know because that's what they were told.


You have none whatsoever.
This will get boring very quickly when teet for tat is offered.

And you are very welcome to think that as it has absolutely no bearing on what I think.



Yep, simple stuff like (here we go) water level, theoretical horizon line, and many other things. But remember they are my facts. What you take from them is entirely up to you.

That's my alternate theories which come about due to the nonsense of the spinning globe...in my own opinion.

I'm sure you shouldn't be after the number of times I've explained...but that's up to you.

I gave you an answer which was not what you said, so we'll leave it at that.

It certainly would be.

Back with the condescending attitude then. Plenty of people have given you evidence and experiments you can conduct yourself that prove we live on a globe. Whereas you have offered nothing but a holier than thou attitude and called everyone a liar, including the entire scientific community and some of the most important figure heads from the ancient world. Your comments are an absolute insult to anyone who has worked and studied in the field of astrophysics, geology etc. Not to mention those who died in the Challenger explosion, you should hang your head in shame.

 

[legend7]

Yep, simple stuff like (here we go) water level, theoretical horizon line, and many other things. But remember they are my facts. What you take from them is entirely up to you.



It certainly would be.

They're not facts they are just observations and musings, what experiments do you have to prove these?
It's only 8000 miles from Argentina to australia in a straight line yet your world you say is over 50000 miles across, that doesn't look correct?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If you are not arguing distances between cities, then you are accepting a complete fail of your flat earth idea. It is impossible to take the well established distances between major cities and land masses and lay them out on a 2d disc. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Of course, that's how it would seem if you peeled the global model because you would be required to fill in the gaps.
The issue is solved when you realise the model where distances are calculated is 2d, not a globe.

You don't navigate on a globe, you navigate on the level where sea and air are concerned.
The rest is navigation over uneven ground, not spherical.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Everyone else doesn;t know. Many people believe they know because that's what they were told.

Many people believe they know different because that's what they saw on a YouTube video.

You seem to be assuming that because it is possible to lie to us, everything told to us is a lie.