Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

I don't think I'm equipped to be able to explain this to you.

I respect you for that.

That is just a string of meaningless words. It is like saying "I've reversed the polarity of the neutron flow". You have energy and you have crystals right, how does that form these perfect holograms and did the crystals ability to do this happen naturally?

Planetariums and actual holographic images in normal life will offer you some really good insight.
Have a good look into it but do it for you, not for any argument.

I think you need to offer a bit more than those 9 words. How does this holographic image of Jupiter form and why does it change over time?

Can you tell me why no one seems to be taking pictures of Jupiter without its red spot?

That is just bollocks. You can literally build a clockwork model of it and see the the simplicity of it, matching what is in the sky.

The model is built for you. Everything is on the silver platter.
I know I keep mention ing it but it's true.

These days computers can simulate it and set this against the background of stars with simple maths and accuracy.

Computers will spew out what's been put into them.

But it essentially comes down to a number of objects moving in a circle, each at different speeds. It works and is observable to both work and compare against actual observations.

What we observe in the sky is what is moving in the sky while we are a stationary Earth.

If your fantasy was real, it exactly, EXACTLY, mimics these objects moving in (almost) circular orbits. No fudging.

Yep. It's all there to see.

Sulfur, phosphorus, ammonia, methane, etc are amongst some of the things detected.

So what turns colourless hydrogen and helium which apparently makes up 99% of the gas planet as we're told?
Not just gas but rivers of hydrogen and helium as it seems we are also told.

And yet a nice big red eye just sitting in it and never changing and always managing to be observed a so-called spinning gas and hydrogen/helium liquid that apparently is the fastest spinning planet as we're told.

I wonder if that so-called gas planet could be something else and not what we're told. I think so but what exactly it is is dependent on what the Earth puts out, not what sits in a so-called space vacuum.

Yet more ignorance from the most clueless person on the board.

You do make me smile.

 

[DaveH]

Also believed to be metallic hydrogen in there which is somewhat mind blowing.

The Wikipedia page on it is quite interesting as is the diagram of Jupiter

Metallic hydrogen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Planetariums and actual holographic images in normal life will offer you some really good insight.
Have a good look into it but do it for you, not for any argument.

You STILL think a planetarium can help you! It still can't.

The model is built for you. Everything is on the silver platter.
I know I keep mention ing it but it's true.

And utterly irrelevant too.

Computers will spew out what's been put into them.

A bit like flat earth erst who saw too many youtube videos

What we observe in the sky is what is moving in the sky while we are a stationary Earth.

This is another thing you'd let go of if only you read and understood what I said this morning. You just don't want to learn anything do you?

 

[DaveH]

Planetariums and actual holographic images in normal life will offer you some really good insight.
Have a good look into it but do it for you, not for any argument.

In those (assuming modern one with digital projector), someone has manufactured a clear LCD screen onto which an image is produced. Light shines through and displays the images. The images themselves are produced frame by frame via a number of different means to show something that looks exactly like the night sky. Or if you so desired you could project the final episode of Neighbours.

The point is something is very carefully prepared and constructed to display like that, and of course the projector has to be focussed.

What is producing the image of Jupiter, other planets, nebula, galaxies etc in your crystal? Why do some change and why does some not.

Can you tell me why no one seems to be taking pictures of Jupiter without its red spot?

Well I posted one yesterday, but google amateur images of Jupiter. There are literally thousands of them out there. Claiming otherwise is just lazy:

amateur jupiter images - Google Suche

The model is built for you. Everything is on the silver platter.
I know I keep mention ing it but it's true.

So? Does the fact I didn't discover Jupiter and it's orbit somehow make it invalid? The question is, does this work and match the reality of what I can observe? Yes, 100%

Computers will spew out what's been put into them.

Correct, and what is put into them is basic equations of circular motion and gravitation and guess what pops out? In the past I've written these sort of simulations myself just to see how they work and test the equations. My first job was writing 3d simulations for BAe Systems, so knocking up something like this as a hobby is fairly easy for me. No randomness, no fudging. And of course it is just doing in software what a big cog wheel would do if you decided to built it as a physical model.

What we observe in the sky is what is moving in the sky while we are a stationary Earth.

For which you have no evidence

Yep. It's all there to see.

Then we are into staggering coincidence territory or deliberate design to fool.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You STILL think a planetarium can help you! It still can't.

It doesn't need to help me. It's there to help people like yourself.

This is another thing you'd let go of if only you read and understood what I said this morning. You just don't want to learn anything do you?

I love to learn but I try to learn stuff that is relevant, not irrelevant like fictional global stories. They're ok to watch in films. I love sci-fi, so when global stuff is on and stuff like armageddon and deep impact, etc, I enjoy them for the sci-fi that they are.

In those (assuming modern one with digital projector), someone has manufactured a clear LCD screen onto which an image is produced. Light shines through and displays the images. The images themselves are produced frame by frame via a number of different means to show something that looks exactly like the night sky. Or if you so desired you could project the final episode of Neighbours.

The point is something is very carefully prepared and constructed to display like that, and of course the projector has to be focussed.

What is producing the image of Jupiter, other planets, nebula, galaxies etc in your crystal? Why do some change and why does some not.

Whatever is happening within Earth.

Well I posted one yesterday, but google amateur images of Jupiter. There are literally thousands of them out there. Claiming otherwise is just lazy:

amateur jupiter images - Google Suche

So? Does the fact I didn't discover Jupiter and it's orbit somehow make it invalid? The question is, does this work and match the reality of what I can observe? Yes, 100%

I have absolutely nothing against what you see and what you believe it to be, even though you#'re told what those images are.
You enjoy sky gazing like many others. The sky is brilliant at night and some people see better than others depending on their location.
I have no issue with you or any other person in terms of what you want to believe and what you're basically told what you see is whatever people or books or TV offer you.
I choose to question it and not believe some of it but accept some of what's told, too.

Correct, and what is put into them is basic equations of circular motion and gravitation and guess what pops out? In the past I've written these sort of simulations myself just to see how they work and test the equations. My first job was writing 3d simulations for BAe Systems, so knocking up something like this as a hobby is fairly easy for me. No randomness, no fudging. And of course it is just doing in software what a big cog wheel would do if you decided to built it as a physical model.

Good for you but you're still only working on what you believe is coming from a spinning global mindset.

For which you have no evidence

Then we are into staggering coincidence territory or deliberate design to fool.

Deliberately designed to fool, yes I'd go with that, at least in recent history to the present.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It doesn't need to help me. It's there to help people like yourself.

No, it's only there because you think it helps explain how your projector would work. It doesn't. No planetarium projects in all directions simultaneously which is what yours would have to do otherwise our sky would not appear as it does.
If your projector was not dead centre of an absolutely perfect sphere the constellations would change shape as the projection moved over it. They do not change in either size or shape.
You like to claim that the Sun moves off into the unseen distance rather than set behind the Earth, if that was the case then the constellations would surely do the same and get gradually smaller. They don't.
If your dome was anything other than perfectly spherical yet the constellations remained unchanged in size or shape, the only possibility would be that not only does your projector know about and correct for any imperfections, but also adjusts the shape of the constellations in real time for every observer, anywhere, all at once. It would have to know that someone in for example Scotland and someone else in say Spain were looking at the sky snd show each a different image. If you can't see how stupidly impossible that is then you have chosen your stupidity.

 

[DaveH]

Good for you but you're still only working on what you believe is coming from a spinning global mindset.

Deliberately designed to fool, yes I'd go with that, at least in recent history to the present.

Ah, the "it is your global mindset" response. You can literally build a working model of this. No mindset or unconscious bias. Like I talked about yesterday with a globe, you can build it and look at it to test.

You don't seem to have an explanation about what Jupiter actually is, other than stuff in the inner earth. You don't seem to be able to provide an explanation as to how this hologram is generated, how it is suspended in a crystal etc, or indeed any evidence for it. You have invented a fantasy and a fantasy we can't build or replicate in any way. You try getting a crystal and an ancient carbon arc lamp and see how many holograms you generate. Now try making that exactly represent what we would observe from the circular motion of the planets. Pure fantasy.

But deliberately designed, that adds a whole new aspect and points to an intelligence at work trying to fool us. You are essentially saying some sort of god did it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No, it's only there because you think it helps explain how your projector would work. It doesn't. No planetarium projects in all directions simultaneously which is what yours would have to do otherwise our sky would not appear as it does.
If your projector was not dead centre of an absolutely perfect sphere the constellations would change shape as the projection moved over it. They do not change in either size or shape.
You like to claim that the Sun moves off into the unseen distance rather than set behind the Earth, if that was the case then the constellations would surely do the same and get gradually smaller. They don't.

You have to factor in the atmosphere over distance into that.

If your dome was anything other than perfectly spherical yet the constellations remained unchanged in size or shape, the only possibility would be that not only does your projector know about and correct for any imperfections, but also adjusts the shape of the constellations in real time for every observer, anywhere, all at once. It would have to know that someone in for example Scotland and someone else in say Spain were looking at the sky snd show each a different image. If you can't see how stupidly impossible that is then you have chosen your stupidity.

Why would it show a different image?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

You have to factor in the atmosphere over distance into that.

Hahaha no you really don't

Why would it show a different image?

If the dome were not perfectly spherical the reflections would be seen from different angles. They're not, so either the dome is spherical and the projector knows who is looking and where they are, or... bear with me on this.... the whole dome & projector story is utter bullshit.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ah, the "it is your global mindset" response. You can literally build a working model of this. No mindset or unconscious bias. Like I talked about yesterday with a globe, you can build it and look at it to test.

It's a massive bias. I'm sure you're more than aware of this.
You argue on the back of this bias even if you think you don't.
All people who argue for a spinning globe do the same.

You don't seem to have an explanation about what Jupiter actually is, other than stuff in the inner earth.

I agree I have no clue what a so-called gas/liquid plant called Jupiter actually is except a projection of something from within Earth onto the dome.

You don't seem to be able to provide an explanation as to how this hologram is generated, how it is suspended in a crystal etc, or indeed any evidence for it.

Correct, I don't have any physical concrete evidence for it other than my theory. But then again the same applies to you with the globe.

You have invented a fantasy and a fantasy we can't build or replicate in any way.

Maybe, maybe not.

You try getting a crystal and an ancient carbon arc lamp and see how many holograms you generate. Now try making that exactly represent what we would observe from the circular motion of the planets. Pure fantasy.

Planetariums will also offer you a better insight. Have a good look into it. It's all in our faces but it comes down to who wishes to see past the global fantasy.

But deliberately designed, that adds a whole new aspect and points to an intelligence at work trying to fool us. You are essentially saying some sort of god did it.

Deliberately designed? Maybe. By who? I don't know. Who designs a cell among cells? Who designs bacteria?
It's another debate for which a clear answer may never be forthcoming.

Hahaha no you really don't

You're not compelled.

If the dome were not perfectly spherical the reflections would be seen from different angles.

Reflections are seen from different angles.

They're not, so either the dome is spherical and the projector knows who is looking and where they are, or... bear with me on this.... the whole dome & projector story is utter bullshit.

They are.

 

[Pancho]

Why would it show a different image?

And there is your total ignorance shining through once again.

In exactly the way you failed to understand Professor Dave's moon video.

View media item 9028
Your perspective of any/most/all (?)* celestial bodies can determine your location on the planet with pretty decent accuracy.

*The clever lads on here will either confirm or modify this statement.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And there is your total ignorance shining through once again.

In exactly the way you failed to understand Professor Dave's moon video.

View media item 9028
Your perspective of any/most/all (?)* celestial bodies can determine your location on the planet with pretty decent accuracy.

*The clever lads on here will either confirm or modify this statement.

Aye and it works just fine around a circle but not on a spinning globe.

 

[fyl2u]

Maybe if he ignores and deflects for long enough facts will cease to be facts.

I think that ship has already sailed bottom first over the horizon.

 

[Pancho]

Aye and it works just fine around a circle but not on a spinning globe.

No wrong again.

The mathematics of observable phenomena only works on a spinning globe.*

I think that ship has already sailed bottom first over the horizon.

Splendid.

 

[DaveH]

It's a massive bias. I'm sure you're more than aware of this.
You argue on the back of this bias even if you think you don't.
All people who argue for a spinning globe do the same.

Ok, another way of looking at this is to ask the question, do you agree that a physical model (orrery) or a computer simulation using basic circular motion, can exactly replicate what we observe?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No wrong again.

The mathematics of observable phenomena only works on a spinning globe.*

I disagree.

Ok, another way of looking at this is to ask the question, do you agree that a physical model (orrery) or a computer simulation using basic circular motion, can exactly replicate what we observe?

I think so, yes.

 

[Pink Panther]

I think so, yes.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Not once have you. In your mind, you can believe you offer all kinds of stuff and that's fine. I see you offering nothing factual.

Because you don't look. Maybe because you don't want to know or maybe you di look but don't understand, maybe you look and pretend. It's simple really. Your version of planet Earth does not and cannot work. Common sense should show you this.
I'm struggling to believe anyone could be this stupid, maybe it was all a dumb wind up after all, well done, you've convinced a lot of people that you're an idiot. What will you do next?

I think that ship has already sailed bottom first over the horizon.

Unliked that just to like it all over again.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Because you don't look. Maybe because you don't want to know or maybe you di look but don't understand, maybe you look and pretend. It's simple really. Your version of planet Earth does not and cannot work. Common sense should show you this.

Logic shows me a spinning globe does not work.
My own senses tell me a lot about the theory I go with by simple experiments and basic logic. That's all that's required to start with.

This is why many people can use their own logical senses if they choose to do it without being in fear of ridicule.

I'm struggling to believe anyone could be this stupid, maybe it was all a dumb wind up after all, well done, you've convinced a lot of people that you're an idiot.

What people think of me is absolutely irrelevant to me. It may be very relevant to them but then again why are they trying to debate with an idiot?
For giggles, right?
They're bored, right?
Why not, right?

It seems the real issues lie elsewhere but that doesn't concern me. I just go with what I go with and deal with whatever I feel the need to deal with.

What will you do next?

Nothing different.

 

[Pink Panther]

Logic shows me a spinning globe does not work.

I think you mean YouTube shows you. Logic hasn't troubled you.