Put a flat earthier into space

[Lonz]

Not “people”

I think they might just be enjoying the attention. Don't feed the trolls.

 

[peachy]

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.

After all your posts that one just made me

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I don;t see any horizon on that diagram, do you?

I think it's been established that you don't know what a horizon is.
You've drawn one ship sinking and one ship going over the horizon.

 

[What A Waster]

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.

State of that diagram man.

Like something a bairn would draw where the pirates attack a lighthouse but both ships and the lighthouse are armed with lasers.

Shambles.

 

[DaveH]

State of that diagram man.

Like something a bairn would draw where the pirates attack a lighthouse but both ships and the lighthouse are armed with lasers.

Shambles.

Combine a lack of understanding of scale with a lack of understanding of field of view and you get interesting results.

 

[fyl2u]

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.

Wrong.

my own experiments

Lies

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.

Wrong.

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.

Wrong.

It comes back to the simplest of things. One is water level. It's boring but it kills the globe in an instant.

WRONG. It kills your flat earth in an instant if you perform the experiments honestly with sufficiently accurate equipment.

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

What the hell is this word salad?

The bits that are actual English are just so factually incorrect that it's not even funny.

I notice he’s refusing to accept the globally recognised 'tit for tat’ offering his own mused ‘teet for tat’

The mental hospital he's in probably has a profanity filter on the computer they let him use.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Feeble wummery

The general go-to answer.

I accept what a globe maker offers, because it works. Tried and tested for hundreds of years by millions.

You accept it because you're told you live on one as do millions upon millions.

So I have provided something that works and is tested.

You haven't proved anything that works on a globe. You've provided what you've been told works on a globe. It's not something you can verify yourself, other than to use what you were given.

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

The map is already provided. It's used to navigate. It's a flat map passed off as a global map.

I like to imagine he's in a workshop somewhere busily constructing a working 3D model, drawing diagrams and earning his place in history.

You're not too far off with that.

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.

You're not too far off with that.

I think he's more of a Pot Noodle and a wank type of person.

Amazing what thinking can do.

 

[Pink Panther]

Amazing what thinking can do.

Who told you that?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You clearly have no idea of the scale of the planet do you?

We don't live on a planet. In my opinion.

But seeing as you think we do and are arguing I don't know the scale, then let me put this to you.
If your planet convexly curves to show a ball that is in our faces day in and day out and your side can argue two bridge towers tilting away from each other at such a short distance then everything must tilt away from each other.

So getting back to the ship and understanding how a level scope from a ship and one from shore, then no matter how it's dressed up, they will never meet. They will always crisscross over each other if you were to draw a level line from that supposed global position of each.

So basically speaking, scale is not an issue when you can blatantly understand what would happen.
The scale is simply showing what happens in a massively pronounced way.

Anyone who wishes to question the globe can use these points to see how it cannot work, in my opinion.

I think it's been established that you don't know what a horizon is.
You've drawn one ship sinking and one ship going over the horizon.

Of course. It covers everything needed.

State of that diagram man.

Like something a bairn would draw where the pirates attack a lighthouse but both ships and the lighthouse are armed with lasers.

Shambles.

Aye, the simplest is always the best. It shows what's needed in basic terms.

Combine a lack of understanding of scale with a lack of understanding of field of view and you get interesting results.

No issues with either.

 

[nahwee]

Bit late for a Saturday morning Nukey, have you overslept?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

But seeing as you think we do and are arguing I don't know the scale, then let me put this to you.
If your planet convexly curves to show a ball that is in our faces day in and day out and your side can argue two bridge towers tilting away from each other at such a short distance then everything must tilt away from each other.

Yes, but as he said... "You clearly have no idea of the scale of the planet do you?"

So getting back to the ship and understanding how a level scope from a ship and one from shore, then no matter how it's dressed up, they will never meet. They will always crisscross over each other if you were to draw a level line from that supposed global position of each.

You're still stuck on that one ?
Yes, they will crisscross over each other if you were to draw a level line from that supposed global position of each
BUT
Who gives a toss about fixed pinpoint vision with crosshairs other than you trying to make some point which will ultimately disprove your own theory?
No-one is restricted to pinpoint vision, we have something like a 50 degree field of view maybe a bit more. The tilt between two verticals is something so tiny you wouldn't see it anyway. We have been through this more than once. The two verticals would be something like 50 miles apart before the difference is one degree.
You seem to be hoping this disproves the curvature but it does the opposite.

So basically speaking, scale is not an issue when you can blatantly understand what would happen.
The scale is simply showing what happens in a massively pronounced way.

Yes, a ship goes over the horizon and disappears from the bottom up.

Anyone who wishes to question the globe can use these points to see how it cannot work, in my opinion.

Your opinion is very wrong.

Bit late for a Saturday morning Nukey, have you overslept?

Busy in his workshop drawing us diagrams

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Bit late for a Saturday morning Nukey, have you overslept?

4.30 rise Monday to Friday.
7am Saturday and Sunday, depending on circumstances.

 

[payne]

4.30 rise Monday to Friday.
7am Saturday and Sunday, depending on circumstances.

Liar. There's no such thing as time and you know this.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Liar. There's no such thing as time and you know this.

You're thinking of horizons.
And gravity.
And the conservation of momentum.
And standard right angles.
And field of view.

 

[payne]

You're thinking of horizons.
And gravity.
And the conservation of momentum.
And standard right angles.
And field of view.

The planet itself doesn't exist, man.

 

[chelt_mackem]

You're thinking of horizons.
And gravity.
And the conservation of momentum.
And standard right angles.
And field of view.

Don't forget water level.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes, but as he said... "You clearly have no idea of the scale of the planet do you?"

Absolutely not because I don't believe it is a planet over 24,000 miles in circumference. I suppose you have no real idea either, to be fair.

Yes, they will crisscross over each other if you were to draw a level line from that supposed global position of each
BUT
Who gives a toss about fixed pinpoint vision with crosshairs other than you trying to make some point which will ultimately disprove your own theory?

I think it's massively relevant but nobody wants to go down that route because it's basically damning for a supposed globe we are told we live upon, among many other damning things.

No-one is restricted to pinpoint vision, we have something like a 50 degree field of view maybe a bit more.

Aye but the field of view offers nothing extra to this argument. In fact, it makes it even worse.

The tilt between two verticals is something so tiny you wouldn't see it anyway.

Tiny or massively exaggerated (diagram) it makes no difference. The tilt would always be there on the globe and that tilt kills off many things offered by global believers.

We have been through this more than once. The two verticals would be something like 50 miles apart before the difference is one degree.
You seem to be hoping this disproves the curvature but it does the opposite.

The angle will offer crisscross vision at pinpoint and as you argue for the field of vision it would offer worse from that pinpoint as that field of vision simply angles away from it, up down, and horizontally so either way it offers nothing back to the immediate scopes of each side.

Yes, a ship goes over the horizon and disappears from the bottom up.

Yep due to what I explained.

Your opinion is very wrong.

I disagree.

Busy in his workshop drawing us diagrams

Maybe.

Liar. There's no such thing as time and you know this.

Absolutely there is for us. But it's person-made and something we are regimented by.
That's as far as it goes for us.

 

[payne]

Absolutely there is for us. But it's person-made and something we are regimented by.
That's as far as it goes for us.

doesn't exist. clocks are part of the conspiracy to get us to conform and attend work to make bosses rich and provide services for the lizard overloards in projection central's vip lounge

 

[Nukehasslefan]

doesn't exist. clocks are part of the conspiracy to get us to conform and attend work to make bosses rich and provide services for the lizard overloards in projection central's vip lounge

You're entitled to think whatever you feel, so fair enough if you think that.

 

[payne]

You're entitled to think whatever you feel, so fair enough if you think that.

it's a fact, from personal experience and small easy repeatable experiments I've undertaken. I'm emboldened in my stance more than ever knowing time isn't real and it's only our masters who know the true nature of stopwatches.