Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Except for the actual horizon offered by the very fact of it being a globe.

That's the whole point. It is not a globe you view your horizon on, in my opinion.

An angle which if measured would be so small that no-one would care unless they had to connect the two with pinpoint accuracy

The angle is an angle no matter what. It offers a skew from level no matter what.

No-one disputes the angles between verticals stood on a globe. They are a result of being stood on a globe. The only problem here is that you are still insisting on pinpoint crosshair vision which we do not have, and your comical inability to understand the minute scale of those angles.

Pinpoint vision offers you a line of sight.
If you are standing plumb and on a level at the same height with two scopes opposite each other, both with crosshair then you are going to see that scope and crosshair from either end.
Standing on a convex Earth would offer you nothing of that because the plumb argument offers you a tilt from either end which means your line of sight is crisscrossed as they met in the middle, meaning you do not get to see the scope crosshairs.

Now we all know this does not happen. There's a very good reason for this. It's because we do not live on a globe.

Once more for the hard of thinking, two verticals would need to be something like 50 - 70 miles apart before the angle was so much as one degree.

Not at all.
50 to 70 miles apart would offer you one hell of a crisscross in the centre as both lines met.
You only need a very small distance to kill off a global mindset, in my opinion.

 

[fyl2u]

You can go anywhere and see many things disappear but they are not going down any curvature. They simply get faded out by the atmosphere cutting out the light from the bottom up which is why you lose your ships bottom up.

Wrong.

You never did explain why something at a distance but visible wouldn't come out clearer on a photo if taken from higher up with it having less dense atmosphere to go through?

Depends how warm the weather is, doesn't it?

 

[legend7]

Right @Nukehasslefan this is pretty much to scale and we know the sizes of both land masses, excuse the drawing skills.
So on a 50k mile wide world with South america "offset opposite" Australia where you described, they would be 40k miles apart yet they aren't and we can fly from one to another without refuelling.
If you move the goalposts and say they aren't near the edge, then again to scale it means the maps you said were representative most certainly aren't, it's a vast waterworld with landmasses all crammed into the centre.
Explain?

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[fyl2u]

That's the whole point. It is not a globe you view your horizon on, in my opinion.

The angle is an angle no matter what. It offers a skew from level no matter what.

Pinpoint vision offers you a line of sight.
If you are standing plumb and on a level at the same height with two scopes opposite each other, both with crosshair then you are going to see that scope and crosshair from either end.
Standing on a convex Earth would offer you nothing of that because the plumb argument offers you a tilt from either end which means your line of sight is crisscrossed as they met in the middle, meaning you do not get to see the scope crosshairs.

Now we all know this does not happen. There's a very good reason for this. It's because we do not live on a globe.

Wrong. And there's even a video clip from the flat earth movie where some of the world's most prominent flat-earthers set out to show what you are trying to suggest using torches through holes to replicate the effect of a scope with a crosshair, but then at the end there's a moment where they're all going "Oh fuck, it only works if I lift it up, which means the earth does have a curve. Shit."

So your own flat earth community have already fucked up your argument for this one.

50 to 70 miles apart would offer you one hell of a crisscross in the centre as both lines met.

Yes, which is exactly what happens. That's why the flat earthers had to lift up the torch to make their experiment work - something they wouldn't have to do if the earth wasn't curved.

You only need a very small distance to kill off a global mindset, in my opinion.

Unfortunately your opinion is based on flawed logic.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Right @Nukehasslefan this is pretty much to scale and we know the sizes of both land masses, excuse the drawing skills.
So on a 50k mile wide world with South america "offset opposite" Australia where you described, they would be 40k miles apart yet they aren't and we can fly from one to another without refuelling.
If you move the goalposts and say they aren't near the edge, then again to scale it means the maps you said were representative most certainly aren't, it's a vast waterworld with landmasses all crammed into the centre.
Explain?

You must be logged on to see external links

You have south America and Australia camped well inside the dome foundation, why?

 

[legend7]

You have south America and Australia camped well inside the dome foundation, why?

They are on the edge of your representative map, as I said if I put them 8k miles apart then all the landmasses are in the centre, which is it?

You have south America and Australia camped well inside the dome foundation, why?

Actually why don't you mark on there where the 2 countries are on the 50k wide world.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

They are on the edge of your representative map, as I said if I put them 8k miles apart then all the landmasses are in the centre, which is it?

I can't help you if you choose to go your own way in deciding what I said and did not say.

Remember when I said don't pay too much attention to where the landmass is on the map and also the central mound and whatnot?

Do you recall I also offered two maps as potentials?
So here's the thing.
I offered 50,000 miles diameter but I also offered a lot of it as a dome foundation. Inhospitable and an area where the sun cannot reach.
Now you can carry on arguing everything from your side and that's fine but don't expect to back me into any corner and put words into my mouth.
If you're interested and want to figure stuff out then don't waste too much of your time trying to twist.

That's all I'm saying but if you carry on then don't moan through frustration when I offer you the same argument.

 

[legend7]

I can't help you if you choose to go your own way in deciding what I said and did not say.

Remember when I said don't pay too much attention to where the landmass is on the map and also the central mound and whatnot?

Do you recall I also offered two maps as potentials?
So here's the thing.
I offered 50,000 miles diameter but I also offered a lot of it as a dome foundation. Inhospitable and an area where the sun cannot reach.
Now you can carry on arguing everything from your side and that's fine but don't expect to back me into any corner and put words into my mouth.
If you're interested and want to figure stuff out then don't waste too much of your time trying to twist.

That's all I'm saying but if you carry on then don't moan through frustration when I offer you the same argument.

I'm saying I obviously don't understand the dome foundation just mark two points on that drawing I just posted as to where Australia and South america are roughly, "offset opposite" and we will take it from there.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

That's the whole point. It is not a globe you view your horizon on, in my opinion.

That line begins as the whole point, quickly reduces to a simple denial and then reveals itself as nothing more than your opinion. No facts, no reasoning. Nothing.

The angle is an angle no matter what. It offers a skew from level no matter what.

Measure the angle. Then tell me how much it matters.

Pinpoint vision offers you a line of sight.

And none of us have or need pinpoint vision. It's a pointless pinpoint argument which means nothing.

If you are standing plumb and on a level at the same height with two scopes opposite each other, both with crosshair then you are going to see that scope and crosshair from either end.
Standing on a convex Earth would offer you nothing of that because the plumb argument offers you a tilt from either end which means your line of sight is crisscrossed as they met in the middle, meaning you do not get to see the scope crosshairs.

Well if I ever need to look at the crosshairs on a scope via another scope I will bear that in mind.
I'm not sure why you're so fixated on this given that if you could be arsed to get the scopes and try it you would succeed in proving curvature.

Now we all know this does not happen. There's a very good reason for this. It's because we do not live on a globe.

What? The whole missed crosshair thing? We know it would happen because it's a globe. You cant use proof of curvature to disprove curvature. Go and spunk a load of cash on a couple of scopes, scratch crosshairs on them and show what you and all of us already know will happen.

Not at all.
50 to 70 miles apart would offer you one hell of a crisscross in the centre as both lines met.

Only you are looking through scopes there. Everyone else is using eyes.

You only need a very small distance to kill off a global mindset, in my opinion.

With sensitive enough measurements you only need a small distance to prove it IS a globe

 

[payne]

It's class the caveats of dome potential. Any possible way to test or measure is put into the not possible category of invented hinderances. Ice walls, too cold to go there, too hot, can't even view it from a distance. It's mint.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It's class the caveats of dome potential. Any possible way to test or measure is put into the not possible category of invented hinderances. Ice walls, too cold to go there, too hot, can't even view it from a distance. It's mint.

Not even allowed to look with your own eyes, have to use pinpoint vision.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

They are on the edge of your representative map, as I said if I put them 8k miles apart then all the landmasses are in the centre, which is it?

Actually why don't you mark on there where the 2 countries are on the 50k wide world.

You must be logged on to see external links

With sensitive enough measurements you only need a small distance to prove it IS a globe

And yet it cannot be proved.
The level can be proven.

 

[legend7]

You must be logged on to see external links

So that makes them about 30,000 miles apart, how do we fly between them without refuelling and in 15 hours?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

And yet it cannot be proved.
The level can be proven.

If the level crosshairs dont meet up, it's proven.

 

[DPTT]

That's the whole point. It is not a globe you view your horizon on, in my opinion.

The angle is an angle no matter what. It offers a skew from level no matter what.

Pinpoint vision offers you a line of sight.
If you are standing plumb and on a level at the same height with two scopes opposite each other, both with crosshair then you are going to see that scope and crosshair from either end.
Standing on a convex Earth would offer you nothing of that because the plumb argument offers you a tilt from either end which means your line of sight is crisscrossed as they met in the middle, meaning you do not get to see the scope crosshairs.

Now we all know this does not happen. There's a very good reason for this. It's because we do not live on a globe.

Not at all.
50 to 70 miles apart would offer you one hell of a crisscross in the centre as both lines met.
You only need a very small distance to kill off a global mindset, in my opinion.

Have you done this scope experiment yourself @Nukehasslefan ?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So that makes them about 30,000 miles apart, how do we fly between them without refuelling and in 15 hours?

No, it doesn't.
I've actually put them too far away anyway. Australia should be closer in.

If the level crosshairs dont meet up, it's proven.

I agree, so try it.

 

[legend7]

No, it doesn't.
I've actually put them too far away anyway. Australia should be closer in.

But to scale they actually are and youve drew them too big (do you have a scale rule, feel free to check) if they were closer together where do all of the other landmasses go as on your representative maps they are around the centre projector whereas yours will all be on the left side if you inserted them now?
Also they wouldn't be on the clock face where you said they would be either?

 

[What A Waster]

No, it doesn't.
I've actually put them too far away anyway. Australia should be closer in.

I agree, so try it.

Did you mean to put Australia at 12

But to scale they actually are and youve drew them too big (do you have a scale rule, feel free to check) if they were closer together where do all of the other landmasses go as on your representative maps they are around the centre projector whereas yours will all be on the left side if you inserted them now?
Also they wouldn't be on the clock face where you said they would be either?

I think he might have meant to have them at 12 and 8 still but more central.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I agree, so try it.

While I may be stupid I'm not quite stupid enough to waste money on destroying scopes to prove the existence of a curve I already know to be there.

 

[payne]

Not even allowed to look with your own eyes, have to use pinpoint vision.

It stands to reason they can't and won't produce anything to test when their starting position is to reject all real-world testing and experiment as fake, thus dismissing the practice in general. This is where their dogma of 'from authority' really takes off. They can't even believe each other's preachments if they follow the commandments to their fullest. This is why we get the 'no need to test' statements and the grandstanding of self-importance in the phrase 'simple personal experiments'. It also follows that there is massive disagreement within their ranks as they all have to come up with an individual reality without copy and pasting from another person (authority), even though they repeat most word for word from other flat earthers.

The distrust of their own species at the level they do is frightening. Their types create many of the division in the word and are so dangerous spreading falsehoods. Maybe most of them are just fools that are tricked into joining the cults and it's only the few at the top are truly evil and want the world to burn. It's their counterparts in the church who kept society back for hundreds of years and slowed the progress of science. Today it's through the means of social media and the like doing the same work. Their most recent work in the UK has been to persuade society to vote to make themselves worse off by leaving the EU and to keep voting in the tories who in reality hate them imo.