Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

I dont have to as its been offered countless times to you by other people on the thread. You just either ignore and deflect away from it or flat out say its fake like an arrogant ignorant condescending clown.

And once again you offer nothing.

 

[Hend79]

And once again you offer nothing.

Ah so now the childish act of just repeating what you just said. More deflecting

 

[legend7]

You decide whatever you feel is best for you.

Well I'm asking.
So far you haven't provided one, the ones you have said are representative don't work, I have shown that today using known distances

 

[DaveH]

It would be no different. It would offer the motion in the sky as we see it, so the argument is basically null.

So I describe where you need a complex mechanism to account for the apparent backwards motion of Mars (and other planets do this) at certain times and the response is "oh that is just how we see it so it is all fine".

If stuff is moving in the sky, then I think you always need a reason for it moving. If it doesn't display constant motion then you need an explanation for what is changing that motion. I've got one for my reality.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Well I'm asking.
So far you haven't provided one, the ones you have said are representative don't work, I have shown that today using known distances

You already decided so you go with what you decided.

 

[DaveH]

I'd like you to explain how a so-called planet can about turn and go the other way. Or is it an optical illusion?
I wonder what would explain this in reality.

It was explained very well in the video link I posted. It doesn't turn backwards, that is the point. But to project it, whatever is projecting it would have to turn back.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So I describe where you need a complex mechanism to account for the apparent backwards motion of Mars (and other planets do this) at certain times and the response is "oh that is just how we see it so it is all fine".

The complex mechanism comes from your adherence to a spinning globe in a space vacuum surrounded by burning stars and swirling balls and whatnot.

I merely offer the Earth as the cell with everything inside it giving us what we see, hear, and feel.

If stuff is moving in the sky, then I think you always need a reason for it moving.

There's a very good reason. It's because something is moving within and projecting that out and back to us. IN my opinion of course.

If it doesn't display constant motion then you need an explanation for what is changing that motion. I've got one for my reality.

There are lots of changes to the motion. Mirroring and angles over distance to our vision create refraction and all kinds of stuff.

It was explained very well in the video link I posted. It doesn't turn backwards, that is the point. But to project it, whatever is projecting it would have to turn back.

I've already said it's claimed to be an optical illusion but you're arguing it moving backwards.

 

[legend7]

You already decided so you go with what you decided.

I didn't decide.
They are frequently flown distances and routes.
Your positioning doesn't work currently.
Feel free to have a rethink and reposition and ill def look at your layout, I'm sure we will get there, you're doing great.
Genuinely interested

 

[DaveH]

The complex mechanism comes from your adherence to a spinning globe in a space vacuum surrounded by burning stars and swirling balls and whatnot.

I merely offer the Earth as the cell with everything inside it giving us what we see, hear, and feel.

There's a very good reason. It's because something is moving within and projecting that out and back to us. IN my opinion of course.

There are lots of changes to the motion. Mirroring and angles over distance to our vision create refraction and all kinds of stuff.

I've already said it's claimed to be an optical illusion but you're arguing it moving backwards.

So assuming the dome is essentially a giant screen, why does Mars suddenly move backwards for a bit, turn round and then continue on it's way, relative to the background stars?

Why does this movement match up EXACTLY to what it would do if you build a scaled model of the solar system and had the earth essentially passing Mars in it's orbit?

I'm not arguing it is moving backwards. I'm saying that it appears to move backwards against the background stars. You can get this sort of effect in a 3d world, but in your 2d world where it is on a screen then something has to be projecting the backwards movement of Mars. You can't have that as an optical illusion when all the stars, planets etc are projected to the same depth on the same objects.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I didn't decide.

You did decide.
You told me:

So you can't make any map you have said is representative of your world work with known distances.
Finally we got there.

So basically go with what you feel from this point on.

 

[legend7]

You did decide.
You told me:


So basically go with what you feel from this point on.

No I allowed you to position where they are in your world then I quoted you known distances.
That's all.
I'm just saying they don't work, or can you show me how the work even just with numbers?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So assuming the dome is essentially a giant screen, why does Mars suddenly move backwards for a bit, turn round and then continue on it's way, relative to the background stars?

It doesn't.

Why does this movement match up EXACTLY to what it would do if you build a scaled model of the solar system and had the earth essentially passing Mars in it's orbit?

Because that's how the model's been made.

I'm not arguing it is moving backwards. I'm saying that it appears to move backwards against the background stars.

You didn't say that earlier.

You can get this sort of effect in a 3d world, but in your 2d world where it is on a screen then something has to be projecting the backwards movement of Mars. You can't have that as an optical illusion when all the stars, planets etc are projected to the same depth on the same objects.

They're just points of light and images and will do what I explained earlier.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

The complex mechanism comes from your adherence to a spinning globe in a space vacuum surrounded by burning stars and swirling balls and whatnot.

No, what you call a complex mechanism is one of the reasons we know we orbit the sun and not the other way around. Once you get yourself free from your cult brainwashing and look at a simple animation of it, it's not all that complex. Stuff going round in circles. We've all been there.

I merely offer the Earth as the cell with everything inside it giving us what we see, hear, and feel.

And you've merely been shown that you're dismissing a simple and correct explanation for what we can see in favour of an impossible one.

There are lots of changes to the motion. Mirroring and angles over distance to our vision create refraction and all kinds of stuff.

None of which you can explain

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No I allowed you to position where they are in your world then I quoted you known distances.
That's all.
I'm just saying they don't work, or can you show me how the work even just with numbers?

You didn't allow me to do anything. You asked me to put landmass on the circle. I did it each time as I promised you.
You don't like it and that's fair enough.
You can do with it what you wish.

No, what you call a complex mechanism is one of the reasons we know we orbit the sun and not the other way around.

The complex mechanism is the fantasy spinning globe and all the fantasy trimmings to make it appear to work.

Once you get yourself free from your cult brainwashing and look at a simple animation of it, it's not all that complex. Stuff going round in circles. We've all been there.

I think there's a much bigger cult following.

And you've merely been shown that you're dismissing a simple and correct explanation for what we can see in favour of an impossible one.

No. I'm dismissing something I believe to be wrong.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

The complex mechanism is the fantasy spinning globe and all the fantasy trimmings to make it appear to work.

Idiot fails to understand simple model, claims sorcery shocker.

I think there's a much bigger cult following.

There will be plenty bigger than your flat earth cult. Reality isn't one of them.

No. I'm dismissing something I believe to be wrong.

Belief is one thing. Scientific proof is another. I'm more and more convinced you have neither. I mean I know you don’t have scientific proof but I think you're losing faith in your theory too. You spent a while asking to be barred from the thread and don't even bother trying any more. Deflection only these days.

 

[legend7]

You didn't allow me to do anything. You asked me to put landmass on the circle. I did it each time as I promised you.
You don't like it and that's fair enough.
You can do with it what you wish.

I'm not saying I don't like it I'm saying known distances don't work on your 2d world.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

There will be plenty bigger than your flat earth cult. Reality isn't one of them.

There are. Global spinning cult.

Belief is one thing. Scientific proof is another.

I agree and this is where we're at, trying to actually gain a scientific belief instead of being told pseudo-scientific stories.

I'm more and more convinced you have neither. I mean I know you don’t have scientific proof but I think you're losing faith in your theory too.

It's good to think but in this case, you're 100% wrong in your belief of what I think about my theory. If anything I believe in it more and more each day, to be fair.

I'm not saying I don't like it I'm saying known distances don't work on your 2d world.

Then tweak it to fit what you believe you do know.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I agree and this is where we're at, trying to actually gain a scientific belief instead of being told pseudo-scientific stories.

That’s really not where we're at and the only pseudo science is yours.

It's good to think but in this case, you're 100% wrong in your belief of what I think about my theory. If anything I believe in it more and more each day, to be fair.

Well that's mental. Help is available

 

[legend7]

Then tweak it to fit what you believe you do know.

It's not what I believe i know.
You said you accepted distances that were flown and travelled regularly by airlines.
The distances don't work on your layout, it may just have been an error so I'm happy for you to show how they can work if you want to amend

 

[DaveH]

It doesn't.

Because that's how the model's been made.

You didn't say that earlier.

They're just points of light and images and will do what I explained earlier.

So a working mechanical mdel that fully explaims and gives the ability to predict vs it just does what it does. Another tough choice.