Put a flat earthier into space

[payne]

So called “experts” what would they know?

Well ,they are all liars or just following what they've remembered in books, so they actually know nowt.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

He doesn't even accept first-hand knowledge at this point from the people on the thread who work in industry. What first-hand knowledge is the response? He doesn't accept anybody knows anything. It's truly bizarre.

He's somehow brainwashed himself into thinking he is of unmatched intellect. It's crazy.

After 800 pages of not only being told 'you're wrong' but repeatedly told why, you would think that there might have been at least one moment of realisation, one little "oh yeah, I see what you mean" moment, but there's nothing. It's entirely deliberate stupidity because he knows that to give way on any little part leads to the entire pile collapsing.

 

[Pink Panther]

What it is now in terms of what we actually see and perceive.

No water and us clinging on in a fantasy scenario, of course.
Basically, it cannot work and the spinning globe is utter nonsense.

No, you haven't understood the basics of the question (probably on purpose but possibly because you genuinely do struggle to grasp simple ideas).
If a globe is correct (and you know it is) you wouldn't expect your response to b). You'd expect the sea to be visible up to the horizon and the bath to be flat.
Your water level tests have the same expected results for a globe and a flat earth. That's why the YouTube conspiracy lunatics keep bringing it up. They prey on the hard of thinking.

Oh really? Well, that may be down to it being nonsense.
If it's not a 1000 plus mph at your equator then don't offer it.

I didn't offer it, I said you don't understand the size of the Earth. You said 1000mph was too fast and 1 rotation per day was slow, not understanding that both were the same speed.

You need to start thinking before you try any of the deep thinking stuff. You can't claim to question everything if you haven't a clue what the answers mean.

 

[payne]

After 800 pages of not only being told 'you're wrong' but repeatedly told why, you would think that there might have been at least one moment of realisation, one little "oh yeah, I see what you mean" moment, but there's nothing. It's entirely deliberate stupidity because he knows that to give way on any little part leads to the entire pile collapsing.

There never will be. He has his flat earth shield which laced with masses of paranoia means he's impenetrable. This is a reason why the 'from authority' bit has been added to their toolkit. It means dismissal of anything can be instant.

Their whole 'debate', their word, it's not a debate, is meant to have everyone else trying to explain over and over again whilst being instantly rejecting until the inevitable grief/slur comes out of frustration. Then the flat earther puffs his chest out and believes he's won a debate be attrition. The whole time he's ignored everything and offered nothing either knowingly or unknowingly.

 

[SYB_DC]

Then don't concentrate on oceans. A nice lake or even a pond or your bath. It doesn't matter because water always finds its level and always conforms to the container it sits in.
What it does not do is sit level on a ba;ll and nor does it conform to the outside of a ball, all around it.

You're arguing for the unicorn and its horn.

I'm not arguing anything or presenting any model. I'm just offering observable facts.

I thought you - who simply extrapolate from naked-eye observable facts like your bathtub while claiming you're not offering any model or anything - would laud me for this. I'm a disciple, swami. But you're not offering enough. Offer away.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

We all know flat versions don't work, because the earth isn't flat, that's the point!

Flat as in what?
I don't think it's flat so where are you going with this? Unless you want to argue just water and then I'll go with flat.

Nobody with half a brain thinks any flat map represents the earth accurately, Jesus is it finally sinking in.

I'm not in charge of everyone so what they think is out of my hands.
As for me, I don't think the entire Earth is flat. You've been well aware of this so using this as your argument is basically pointless as far as I'm concerned.
As intelligent as I think you are...and I just think stuff like this weakens your arguments.

So if the earth is indeed flat why do you think nobody can produce a flat map mark some measured distances on and prove everyone who believes in a globe map wrong, I'll tell you why... .... it can't be done.

I agree it can't be done based on trying to copy a globe to 2d but I do keep saying this.
But it can be done by changing the entire landmass into different positions and throwing the actual map into a massive alternate configuration.

We all know that south africa and Australia aren't that far apart really (6000 miles) you're the one that thinks they are on the opposite side of a lemon squeezer.

No I don't.

The actual recorded numbers that have been known for thousands of years.

What's been known for thousands of years?

The planes mustn’t fly in a straight line if they fly 10k miles on a disc with an 8k diameter.

It doesn't have an 8k diameter, you're thinking close to the global belief.

What weakens the argument is ignoring everything people have told you, dismissing their facts and even denying they were ever given.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've seen all those arguments before, many times and they still offer no proof of anything. But I'm definitely open to proof if you or anyone has any.

Considering the length of time you've been here dismissing pretty much everyone as misguided sheep who are unable to think for themselves, being called stupid is pretty mild dont you think?

Oh, I'm not complaining. Any name used for me is pretty mild to me so I have absolutely no issues in you using whatever you feel is appropriate for the time but do forgive me if I pass over a lot of it because too much by too many becomes a bit boring to answer to and crates nothing more than frustration to the perpetrators.

And to be fair, your entire story (it doesn't qualify as a theory) is monumentally stupid.

That's absolutely fine because that's exactly what I think of the global story being passed off as fact but the same story passed off as fiction is actually a good old story.

Exactly, I haven't brought up the fact of where he placed them bearing in mind he said its 50000 miles across......

Pay more attention.

No, you haven't understood the basics of the question (probably on purpose but possibly because you genuinely do struggle to grasp simple ideas).
If a globe is correct (and you know it is) you wouldn't expect your response to b). You'd expect the sea to be visible up to the horizon and the bath to be flat.
Your water level tests have the same expected results for a globe and a flat earth.

No, they actually don't.
They do to you because you're fully invested in the globe model, so why would you argue any different?

I didn't offer it, I said you don't understand the size of the Earth. You said 1000mph was too fast and 1 rotation per day was slow, not understanding that both were the same speed.

Are you saying 1000mph is slow?

You need to start thinking before you try any of the deep thinking stuff. You can't claim to question everything if you haven't a clue what the answers mean.

I'm fine, as I say. I'm absolutely comfortable with where I'm at with my thoughts.

I'm not arguing anything or presenting any model. I'm just offering observable facts.

I thought you - who simply extrapolate from naked-eye observable facts like your bathtub while claiming you're not offering any model or anything - would laud me for this. I'm a disciple, swami. But you're not offering enough. Offer away.

Simple experiments. Nobody seems to want to do them or they don't want to admit to doing them for fear of finding the reality and daring to argue for it, knowing they would be ridiculed. It's all about having the strength and conviction to do it.
Most will not and I get it.

 

[fyl2u]

There's no reality to pull. Everything is compression and expansion and you can't have compression without expansion which is the reason for compression.
Nothing can pull but we are offered push and pull in thought to make visual comparisons, that's all.

Compression is caused by the displacement of objects or even molecules or atoms if you want to go down that route for clarity.
Atmospheric compression against our push into it and displacement of it by our very own dense mass offers that compression of the atmosphere by displacement and the very same atmosphere displaced is compressing right back onto us and keeping out feet firmly on the ground.

Gravity is a magical mystery made up to keep a globe and space alive. It's utter nonsense.


Any reasonable amount of water against atmospheric pressure will offer the same thing. Conformation to any container and a surface level.


Of course, it's still wet. There's not enough water left to fully overcome the atmospheric pressure around the ball so it takes a lot longer for the much less dense mass of it to overcome the resistance of the atmospheric stack below and around.


Make sure you keep adding this as others do and we can have a giggle and go from there.

I find it bemusing why so many people still think we live on a spinning globe but then I realise I was whacked with this and in this day and age we are saturated with space stuff and spinning globes, so it's not really that surprising.

Some people eventually take the time to question and once they do they see a different setup and cannot go back.

Wrong.

do boats go up and downhill?

Yes.

Flat as in what?
I don't think it's flat so where are you going with this? Unless you want to argue just water and then I'll go with flat.

I'm not in charge of everyone so what they think is out of my hands.
As for me, I don't think the entire Earth is flat. You've been well aware of this so using this as your argument is basically pointless as far as I'm concerned.
As intelligent as I think you are...and I just think stuff like this weakens your arguments.

Yes, you do believe the world is flat. You are a flat-earther. Your lemon-squeezer cell-world is an example of a flat earth.

It doesn't matter where you go on your cell-world, "downwards" in the spot you're in will always be parallel with "downwards" in every other position in the world.

Similarly, "horizontal" is always parallel to every other "horizontal" regardless of where you are in the world.

In mathematical terms, that means that your world exists on a "flat plane". I.E., it is exactly what everyone else on Earth is talking about when they say the words "flat earth".

We've told you this many times on this thread and now you're back to playing stupid and pretending you don't know this.

Let's have it in big bold letters so that you can see it easily:

YOUR LEMON SQUEEZER EARTH MODEL IS AN EXAMPLE OF A FLAT EARTH MODEL.

YOU ARE A FLAT EARTHER.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Wrong.


Yes.


Yes, you do believe the world is flat. You are a flat-earther. Your lemon-squeezer cell-world is an example of a flat earth.

It doesn't matter where you go on your cell-world, "downwards" in the spot you're in will always be parallel with "downwards" in every other position in the world.

Similarly, "horizontal" is always parallel to every other "horizontal" regardless of where you are in the world.

In mathematical terms, that means that your world exists on a "flat plane". I.E., it is exactly what everyone else on Earth is talking about when they say the words "flat earth".

We've told you this many times on this thread and now you're back to playing stupid and pretending you don't know this.

Let's have it in big bold letters so that you can see it easily:

YOUR LEMON SQUEEZER EARTH MODEL IS AN EXAMPLE OF A FLAT EARTH MODEL.

YOU ARE A FLAT EARTHER.

Wrong.

 

[fyl2u]

Are you saying 1000mph is slow?

When the Earth's circumference is 24000 miles, then yes, 1000mph can be considered slow. So slow that it takes 24 hours for a part of the Earth on the equator to spin back to it's starting position.

It really isn't that hard a maths problem:

24,000 miles at 1000 miles per hour would take _______ hours?

a: 1 hour
b: 12 hours
c: 24 hours
d: a year
e: a lemon

 

[Nukehasslefan]

When the Earth's circumference is 24000 miles, then yes, 1000mph can be considered slow. So slow that it takes 24 hours for a part of the Earth on the equator to spin back to it's starting position.

It really isn't that hard a maths problem:

24,000 miles at 1000 miles per hour would take _______ hours?

a: 1 hour
b: 12 hours
c: 24 hours
d: a year
e: a lemon

If it's so slow then it's best not to offer it for the equatorial bulge.
You can't have it both ways.

 

[fyl2u]

If it's so slow then it's best not to offer it for the equatorial bulge.
You can't have it both ways.

The very slight, barely perceptible "equatorial bulge" that you're speaking of is only a difference of 1/300th between the distances in diameter around the equator compared with pole to pole.

To put that in perspective, if you had a model of the globe that had a diameter of 1 metre around the middle, the diameter from north pole to south pole would be only 3mm lower.

If you were genuinely interested in how this could be possible (which we all know you aren't because you refuse to ever do any research into anything that you've already decided doesn't fit your story), you would play around with the following formula:

Logon or register to see this image

Of course, that formula is for an object of uniform density, but as we all know, celestial bodies have a greater mass towards their centre due to gravity, so the expected flattening of a planet will always be a little lower than the answer this formula will approximate.

Oh, I forgot, you can't do maths. OK, here's a picture of a swingball set to show you how it doesn't work:

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The very slight, barely perceptible "equatorial bulge" that you're speaking of is only a difference of 1/300th between the distances in diameter around the equator compared with pole to pole.

To put that in perspective, if you had a model of the globe that had a diameter of 1 metre around the middle, the diameter from north pole to south pole would be only 3mm lower.

If you were genuinely interested in how this could be possible (which we all know you aren't because you refuse to ever do any research into anything that you've already decided doesn't fit your story), you would play around with the following formula:

Logon or register to see this image

Of course, that formula is for an object of uniform density, but as we all know, celestial bodies have a greater mass towards their centre due to gravity, so the expected flattening of a planet will always be a little lower than the answer this formula will approximate.

Oh, I forgot, you can't do maths. OK, here's a picture of a swingball set to show you how it doesn't work:

Logon or register to see this image

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Pink Panther]

No, they actually don't.
They do to you because you're fully invested in the globe model, so why would you argue any different?

Like I said, they prey on the hard of thinking.
Scientific progress goes boink.

 

[fyl2u]

You can't have it both ways.

You absolutely can, and I don't see what your problem is with it. The world spins fast enough for there to be a barely perceptible bulge, but not fast enough that the water can escape gravity and fly off.

It's pretty basic stuff.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

You can't have it both ways.

No-one does. You're mixing two different things and using them as some sort of proof of something they're not.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Like I said, they prey on the hard of thinking.
Scientific progress goes boink.

Nothing wrong with scientific progress.
It's when pseudo-science is offered as factual. That's when the issues start.

You absolutely can, and I don't see what your problem is with it.
The world spins fast enough for there to be a barely perceptible bulge, but not fast enough that the water can escape gravity and fly off.

It's pretty basic stuff.

Pretty basic stuff for the magician. I agree.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I'm not ignoring anything. I've seen all those arguments before, many times and they still offer no proof of anything. But I'm definitely open to proof if you or anyone has any.

So how come I've told you several times how o see for yourself that the Earth spins and not whatever you choose to call the Sun and stars, yet you still ask? Still deny that my proof exists and still claim all I know is what I'm told? Because you ignore it.

That's absolutely fine because that's exactly what I think of the global story being passed off as fact but the same story passed off as fiction is actually a good old story.

Passed off as factual, with actual facts to back it up. That's where the personal experience thing becomes important though isn't it.... for reasons

Simple experiments. Nobody seems to want to do them or they don't want to admit to doing them for fear of finding the reality and daring to argue for it, knowing they would be ridiculed. It's all about having the strength and conviction to do it.
Most will not and I get it.

Plenty want to know the experiments and try them out.... you consistently refuse to share them. "Simple experiments" gives them nothing, again, for reasons.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No-one does. You're mixing two different things and using them as some sort of proof of something they're not.

It's not me mixing them. It comes from your side.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It's not me mixing them. It comes from your side.

Yeah you're right, I mixed things up to confuse you and hide the reality of our planet.

 

[DaveH]

The very slight, barely perceptible "equatorial bulge" that you're speaking of is only a difference of 1/300th between the distances in diameter around the equator compared with pole to pole.

To put that in perspective, if you had a model of the globe that had a diameter of 1 metre around the middle, the diameter from north pole to south pole would be only 3mm lower.

If you were genuinely interested in how this could be possible (which we all know you aren't because you refuse to ever do any research into anything that you've already decided doesn't fit your story), you would play around with the following formula:

Logon or register to see this image

Of course, that formula is for an object of uniform density, but as we all know, celestial bodies have a greater mass towards their centre due to gravity, so the expected flattening of a planet will always be a little lower than the answer this formula will approximate.

Oh, I forgot, you can't do maths. OK, here's a picture of a swingball set to show you how it doesn't work:

Logon or register to see this image

Also consider that there is a fair bit of geological evidence that the earth spun a lot faster earlier in its formation and was more tectonically active. It suggests most of the very slight bulge was formed millions of years ago. The earth didn’t just appear as it is now.