• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


Nukehasslefan said:
Ships disappearing bottom first would certainly not offer a global argument.
Ships disappearing bottom first would offer a horizon (theoretical) line perspective that will slowly lose the reflected light from the ship back to your eyes and leave everything above with more reflected light until distance scuppers that too.
This is why you lose a ship over distance and is why you can bring it back with a telescope because it offers you a magnified vision that your naked eyes lost.

If that ship were on a globe, for one there would be no water for a ship to sail on. However, we will go with the magical mystery of water on a ball.
So that being that you can look at a ship going over a convex curvature and every angled tilted down movement forward of that ship offers yourself an angle downward tilt backward with your standing vision of it.
This means you would get to see none of what you actually do see in reality.
You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
Do you realise you have provided a picture of a ship with line of sight showing the mast just above the horizon and the bottom hidden (the ship on the left)? Like exactly what you see. The ship on the right is in full view, but sinking for reasons not related to the shape of the earth.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the whole tilted back thing. People do have the ability to angle their heads. But also consider the scale. You have shown the curve of the planet by drawing a ball. The lighthouse and the ship on the left are about 40 degrees apart. While the angle from the level of the lighthouse to the left most boat is quite pronounced, if that was on the real earth then the left most ship would be around 4,500 km away.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Try not to project, it doesn't help your cause.

You can travel as much as you want but you're traveling over land sea or air and are not doing it over a globe but told you are and you are going on that and those distances as though they're based on that, which they are not.

I've never said distances were wrong. As for insults, don't make me laugh, you try it every time so don't use this as some kind of point-making.


Your map is handed to you on a silver platter with everything at your fingertips and many many years of schooling so arguing this point is basically pointless.

The map is already provided it's just been turned into a global one.
Click to expand...
So what if someone already made a globe for me? Can I measure it and verify it yes. That is a perfectly acceptable way to validate it.

Where is the 2d disc scale map? You claim to have provided it but I have not seen it.

I ask you again, can you provide a 2d disc map where the distances work with accepted reality?

You seem to be hiding from this very basic bit of evidence. Perhaps because it doesn't work.
 
DaveH said:
Do you realise you have provided a picture of a ship with line of sight showing the mast just above the horizon and the bottom hidden (the ship on the left)? Like exactly what you see. The ship on the right is in full view, but sinking for reasons not related to the shape of the earth.
Click to expand...
I don;t see any horizon on that diagram, do you?
DaveH said:
I'm not sure what you are getting at with the whole tilted back thing.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you must do it.
It's offered with bridge towers so it should be no different with anything over a supposed convex curvature.
DaveH said:
People do have the ability to angle their heads.
Click to expand...
Of course and I covered it all in that one diagram to show that is exactly what you could do but it would offer you a look into the drink. Take a good look at it.
This is why I used level scope over the distance before, to show exactly what would happen from an angled supposed global view.


DaveH said:
But also consider the scale. You have shown the curve of the planet by drawing a ball. The lighthouse and the ship on the left are about 40 degrees apart. While the angle from the level of the lighthouse to the left most boat is quite pronounced, if that was on the real earth then the left most ship would be around 4,500 km away.
Click to expand...
Of course, it's clearly not to any scale but does not need to be to point out the global discrepancies that would still be there over even short distances, albeit a much less angled view the closer it is but nonetheless still angled, which is key.
This is why I brought the bridge towers up because one kills off the other argument.

I don't expect you to accept any of it, why would you?
I'm just offering this to those who question.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Ships disappearing bottom first would certainly not offer a global argument.
Click to expand...
Ok, except that they do.
Nukehasslefan said:
Ships disappearing bottom first would offer a horizon (theoretical) line perspective that will slowly lose the reflected light from the ship back to your eyes and leave everything above with more reflected light until distance scuppers that too.
Click to expand...
No, that's you not understanding perspective.
Nukehasslefan said:
This is why you lose a ship over distance and is why you can bring it back with a telescope because it offers you a magnified vision that your naked eyes lost.
Click to expand...
THAT is perspective. If something has already gone over the curve bottom first, you can only magnify the part that remains above.
Nukehasslefan said:
If that ship were on a globe, for one there would be no water for a ship to sail on. However, we will go with the magical mystery of water on a ball.
Click to expand...
Nothing magical or mysterious, simply beyond your comprehension.
Nukehasslefan said:
So that being that you can look at a ship going over a convex curvature and every angled tilted down movement forward of that ship offers yourself an angle downward tilt backward with your standing vision of it.
Click to expand...
Want to take another go at that in English?
Nukehasslefan said:
This means you would get to see none of what you actually do see in reality.
Click to expand...
You appear to have gone over some sort of curve there.
Nukehasslefan said:
I know you aren't making stuff up, it's all done for you but I accept that and I'm obviously fine with it.
Click to expand...
No. No one ever duped, deceived or misled me over the equinox shadow stuff or what I can see with my own eyes in the sky. Despite your claims of mass indoctrination you would not be alone in not understanding the sky and apparent motion. It isn't something everyone gets. But it is all there for anyone who wants to look and see for themselves. You do not and thats fine. So long as you don't start telling those who do understand otherwise.
Nukehasslefan said:
It doesn't reproduce any effect of being on a spinning globe. It produces the effect you see in the sky.
Click to expand...
It really does. I'm not making it up and you have yet to offer an alternative explanation for what can be seen.
Nukehasslefan said:
The spinning globe is just a story hiding what's really going on.
Click to expand...
It isn't.
 
DaveH said:
So what if someone already made a globe for me? Can I measure it and verify it yes. That is a perfectly acceptable way to validate it.
Click to expand...
Of course, you can measure a globe made for you, and you could drive a distance on the road and mark it on a globe as what you came to with time and speed and then mark your globe to a scale you see fit.
But that's all you're doing, marking a model based on a scaled Earth-size you determine, or to put in bluntly, you're following what the globe makers offer you.
DaveH said:
Where is the 2d disc scale map? You claim to have provided it but I have not seen it.
Click to expand...
To get the map you simply tweak the global one back to what it was originally, basically.
DaveH said:
I ask you again, can you provide a 2d disc map where the distances work with accepted reality?
Click to expand...
As above.
DaveH said:
You seem to be hiding from this very basic bit of evidence. Perhaps because it doesn't work.
Click to expand...
I've got no need to hide. You seem to be hiding behind a globe without offering any reality to it.
 
taipeisafc said:
No you state it is fictional so prove it doesnt exist or offer an alternative proof not a musing a proof.
Click to expand...
If it's fictional then it doesn't exist. Can you prove it does?
If you can't then fair enough. If you can then you can offer it up or refuse. Either way, I'm ok with whatever decision you make.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Of course, you can measure a globe made for you, and you could drive a distance on the road and mark it on a globe as what you came to with time and speed and then mark your globe to a scale you see fit.
But that's all you're doing, marking a model based on a scaled Earth-size you determine, or to put in bluntly, you're following what the globe makers offer you.

To get the map you simply tweak the global one back to what it was originally, basically.

As above.

I've got no need to hide. You seem to be hiding behind a globe without offering any reality to it.
Click to expand...
I accept what a globe maker offers, because it works. Tried and tested for hundreds of years by millions.

So I have provided something that works and is tested.

I ask you again, can you provide a map of your 2d disc where the distances work with accepted reality?
 
DaveH said:
I ask you again, can you provide a map of your 2d disc where the distances work with accepted reality?
Click to expand...
I like to imagine he's in a workshop somewhere busily constructing a working 3D model, drawing diagrams and earning his place in history.

I bet he's really just eating pasties, drinking tea and tutting at the world with the smug satisfaction of knowing they're all just deluded fools.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Ships disappearing bottom first would certainly not offer a global argument.
Ships disappearing bottom first would offer a horizon (theoretical) line perspective that will slowly lose the reflected light from the ship back to your eyes and leave everything above with more reflected light until distance scuppers that too.
This is why you lose a ship over distance and is why you can bring it back with a telescope because it offers you a magnified vision that your naked eyes lost.

If that ship were on a globe, for one there would be no water for a ship to sail on. However, we will go with the magical mystery of water on a ball.
So that being that you can look at a ship going over a convex curvature and every angled tilted down movement forward of that ship offers yourself an angle downward tilt backward with your standing vision of it.
This means you would get to see none of what you actually do see in reality.
You must be logged on to see external links



I know you aren't making stuff up, it's all done for you but I accept that and I'm obviously fine with it.

It doesn't reproduce any effect of being on a spinning globe. It produces the effect you see in the sky.
The spinning globe is just a story hiding what's really going on.


Water is part of the stacking so I haven't forgotten that.
Click to expand...
You clearly have no idea of the scale of the planet do you? :lol:
:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top