Put a flat earthier into space

[Pink Panther]

Of course not, to you, because the globe is the taileor made effort.

You even spell like Heeed.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You even spell like Heeed.

Who is Heeed?

 

[Pink Panther]

Who is Heeed?

You know. You've even been linked with this before.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You know. You've even been linked with this before.

No, I don't know but if you think I'm someone called Heeed then surely you need to take it up with the admin or moderators so they can find this out...right?

 

[legend7]

Maybe they are maybe they aren't but that's not my argument.
My argument is how are they measured?

They are measured by being travelled regularly, the map is created by knowing distances not the other way around.
You said the known distances between cities was accepted yet you can't make them work on a flat map.
You're the one that said they could work on both, so prove it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

They are measured by being travelled regularly, the map is created by knowing distances not the other way around.

Knowing distances is one thing. Knowing whether they're on a globe is another.

You said the known distances between cities was accepted yet you can't make them work on a flat map.

Accepted based on what you say. Now I'd like to know how they are measured.

You're the one that said they could work on both, so prove it.

You seem to offer me place names and you ask me to offer you a map based on your global map but circular.
It seems like you have the easy way out on this and you know it.

But......
How about you tell me how the global map was measured to become a global map.

 

[legend7]

Knowing distances is one thing. Knowing whether they're on a globe is another.

Accepted based on what you say. Now I'd like to know how they are measured.

You seem to offer me place names and you ask me to offer you a map based on your global map but circular.
It seems like you have the easy way out on this and you know it.

But......
How about you tell me how the global map was measured to become a global map.

You said you accepted known distances between places flew or travelled regularly or are you now backtracking?
I never said offer a circular map based on a global map.
I said plot known and accepted distances on to a circle to scale to show us how they will work on your world.
I even gave you a simple idea as to how you could do it using strips of paper representative of known distances/routes

Accepted based on what you say. Now I'd like to know how they are measured.

Your own reply is in post #15068

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You said you accepted known distances between places flew or travelled regularly or are you now backtracking?

Not at all. I didn't say I believed them but that's neither here nor there for now.
How did you come to the conclusion those distances are correct for a globe?
How would you measure such a thing?

I never said offer a circular map based on a global map.

No, you didn't but the globe has to offer a circular/arc route to each destination. How do they manage it?

I said plot known and accepted distances on to a circle to scale to show us how they will work on your world.

I know what you said.

I even gave you a simple idea as to how you could do it using strips of paper representative of known distances/routes

I don't need to use strips of paper.
I could simply use a large piece of paper and trace it over a globe then simply piece it together offering the centre to raise and the outer to close in to form a concave turn up as I bring the pieces in.

But my question to you is, how would you map the Earth to show a globe?

 

[legend7]

Not at all. I didn't say I believed them but that's neither here nor there for now.
How did you come to the conclusion those distances are correct for a globe?
How would you measure such a thing?

No, you didn't but the globe has to offer a circular/arc route to each destination. How do they manage it?

I know what you said.

I don't need to use strips of paper.
I could simply use a large piece of paper and trace it over a globe then simply piece it together offering the centre to raise and the outer to close in to form a concave turn up as I bring the pieces in.

But my question to you is, how would you map the Earth to show a globe?

You're twisting the argument because you know you're wrong.
The proof is that known distances prove the world is not flat/mounded as you say it is.
100% proves that.
Unless you can put those cities on a circle and make the distances work like you said you could.
You did say you accepted known flown distances, post 15068.
These distances do work if you put them on a globe model.

 

[Pink Panther]

No, I don't know but if you think I'm someone called Heeed then surely you need to take it up with the admin or moderators so they can find this out...right?

Your posting style and scant regard of facts say otherwise.

There's no evidence to suggest any other explanation.

 

[legend7]

I don't need to use strips of paper.
I could simply use a large piece of paper and trace it over a globe then simply piece it together offering the centre to raise and the outer to close in to form a concave turn up as I bring the pieces in.

Go on then

 

[DaveH]

I have no real idea. Not billions or even million of years old that's for sure, imo.

There is no proof for any of the stuff being argued.
There are many stories and weak circumstantial evidence, but no proof, at all.
You can argue that all you want but you are in the same boat. You cannot verify what you're arguing for.

Yes there is, you just dismiss it all without good reason.

We've been to certain heights and looked.
We have not been into any space vacuum and looked back at a rotating oblate spheroid.

You have no evidence of this, you just don't think it feels right so dismiss it out of hand, same as any other conspiracy theorists. That rocket don't look right. But Star Trek and Santa is not real so that means that is not real. But you can't point to a single thing that makes the concept of space travel impossible, only a religious believe in an ice dome you can't verify.

It's not a case of it not feeling right. There's plenty of evidence that is stronger than anything offered for a globe, in my opinion.

So why don't you offer any single valid experiment that can be independently verified? You just say things like "it is obvious the vortex is all around us". That is not evidence, that is not science, that is a feeling, a religious belief.

You know the simplest with water.

You failed to comment on my post that your experiment is fundamentally flawed and if you did want to prove that water was level with a spirit level, to have a measurable curve of 4mm, you would need a level 451 meters long. Your experiment with a 2m builders spirit level would only measure a curve over 1000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. This is your only experiment and it is a complete fail.

You can also add in rockets being unable to work outside of the atmosphere into what you claim (on the back of stories) to be a vacuum.

We have been through this millions of times, the fuel mix contains oxygen so it can burn. Why is this so hard to comprehend or is it just inconvenient?

We've been through this. Millions of people can champion the stories but they do not have to be in on any lies.
It simply comes down to a belief in a story and a belief and acceptance of what that story depicts and why.
That story then becomes their expertise even if they do not know the reality of it.

But you are talking about a paranoid conspiracy, lets not get away from that. We can argue about the numbers and all the people who work in the professions related to your fantasy physics who would have noticed, but if that number is large or small, you are talking about some malevolent group out to deceive us. This group has been around for hundreds or thousands of years, steering humanity down a blind ally and the many worldwide space agencies reinforce this more than anyone else with fake missions. It becomes a complex hoax for no apparent reason. Or it just simply reality. Lets also not forget that you think the images displayed in these crystals are potentially created holograms by another intelligence - basically a god in on the joke.

None of that is up against my musings.

Of course it is and this is a trend of all conspiracy loons. Put reality under intense scrutiny, make up something with zero experimental evidence for, make up something from their own head, don't prove any of it, don't put any of it under the same scrutiny you put reality and just go with it from there. It is what fascinates me about your sort. We have the sum of human knowledge and achievement against something from your head that doesn't work and needs a massive conspiracy for yours to be true. The odds are not in your favour. How likely is it that you have discovered a sophisticated truth just by thinking?

Something simple like providing a map?

Take away your globe and what do you have?

If I ask you to draw me a map, what are you going to use?

I would take the accepted distances between cities and landmasses then attempt to build a model. This is where this discussion on maps started 2 weeks ago. Don't you remember? @legend7 has repeated it enough times. Personally I'd use something software driven. Just google "3d network visualization", there are loads of free tools out there. Define nodes, define the length of connections between them and let the computer calculate how they can work together. The beauty is, it is completely out of context. It is just nodes and distances. This sort of software is used for all sorts of visualisations, planning and engineering. It takes the whole shape of the planet out of it, it just makes a shape that fits, and guess what? That is not flat.

You can not produce a map where the distances work. You eventually admitted it when I asked you this repeatedly. So that is an easy one, I can easily construct a new globe based on reliable and tested data. You can not build a space pizza. It is just a long line of failure on the flat earth conspiracy. But I'm happy for you to prove me otherwise.

 

[fyl2u]

I have no real idea. Not billions or even million of years old that's for sure, imo.

There is no proof for any of the stuff being argued.
There are many stories and weak circumstantial evidence, but no proof, at all.
You can argue that all you want but you are in the same boat. You cannot verify what you're arguing for.

We've been to certain heights and looked.
We have not been into any space vacuum and looked back at a rotating oblate spheroid.

It's not a case of it not feeling right. There's plenty of evidence that is stronger than anything offered for a globe, in my opinion.
You know the simplest with water.
You can also add in rockets being unable to work outside of the atmosphere into what you claim (on the back of stories) to be a vacuum.

The gunk told as to how they supposedly work outside of dense atmosphere is rather amusing in one respect but it's a hell of a story.


We've been through this. Millions of people can champion the stories but they do not have to be in on any lies.
It simply comes down to a belief in a story and a belief and acceptance of what that story depicts and why.
That story then becomes their expertise even if they do not know the reality of it.

Millions in on it or millions duped? I know which side you go with and I'm sure you know mine.

None of that is up against my musings.
The global story is an argument in itself. It does not need anything from my musing.
As I said many times before. I do not offer anything of mine as a fact.

Something simple like providing a map?
Take away your globe and what do you have?

If I ask you to draw me a map, what are you going to use?

Wrong

Hollywood sends actors home after selling us their fiction and do you think those actors are sworn to secrecy?

Actors don't go home thinking "everyone that sees this movie is going to believe it actually happened, the suckers; I'd better not tell anyone that I'm just an actor acting in a fiction so that nobody will figure out it's just a story not real life".

 

[payne]

Then you're very serious.

so by definition you're fa too serious

 

[fyl2u]

Maybe they are maybe they aren't but that's not my argument.
My argument is how are they measured?

I'll make this easier seeing as you want to use maps and distances.
How would you start out mapping your globe?

Of course, it's called being tailor-made.

Of course not, to you, because the globe is a tailor-made effort.

That's not an argument at all. Do the experiment yourself with the strips of paper cut to scale length for the distances between cities and tell us what shape they form naturally when they're all joined together. Try to make them into a flat world shape and see what happens.

You won't because you know you're wrong and you know this will prove it.

 

[Pink Panther]

Wrong


Actors don't go home thinking "everyone that sees this movie is going to believe it actually happened, the suckers; I'd better not tell anyone that I'm just an actor acting in a fiction so that nobody will figure out it's just a story not real life".

I am not a wizard. So how do I portray a wizard? I pretend.

 

[fyl2u]

Knowing distances is one thing. Knowing whether they're on a globe is another.

Accepted based on what you say. Now I'd like to know how they are measured.

You seem to offer me place names and you ask me to offer you a map based on your global map but circular.

No he isn't, he's asking you to prove the world is a cell shape by using the known distances between places. It should be easy, considering we know how far apart places are from each other and you've agreed that the reported distances are correct.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You're twisting the argument because you know you're wrong.

Of course I'm twisting the argument but not because I'm wrong, it's just a case of me asking you how a globe is measured to become the thing we are shown. That's all.

My question to you is, how would you measure a globe?

The proof is that known distances prove the world is not flat/mounded as you say it is.

Sying it is fine but it offers no proof and you absolutely know this.

100% proves that.
Unless you can put those cities on a circle and make the distances work like you said you could.
You did say you accepted known flown distances, post 15068.

I know what I said but now you need to show me why I would accept them.

These distances do work if you put them on a globe model.

So tell me how they do it.
Tell me how you would do it.
Of course, you're not obliged, obviously.

 

[fyl2u]

I am not a wizard. So how do I portray a wizard? I pretend.

I can't wait for people to see this movie and actually believe wizards exist because of it, the story-believing fools who can't think for themselves.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Your posting style and scant regard of facts say otherwise.

There's no evidence to suggest any other explanation.

Go with what you feel. I'm fine with it.

Go on then

Show me how you would map a globe.