• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


DPTT said:
Observations and not being so far up my own arse that I actually believe what has been studied, reviewed and accepted by millions of scientists throughout time

Now why does it not make sense to you?
Click to expand...
Ok so you don't actually know, you just accept it makes sense because...well just because.
 
legend7 said:
So as @The Snockerty Friddle says the projector must be bang on central and the dome must be a perfect half sphere or there would be distortion.
So there may be no height or gradient at all, you have no idea about that you say now?
Click to expand...
But then consider that midday in some parts of the world at precisely predictable times consistent with a planet having an axis tilted at 23 degrees and in orbit around the sun, you have zero shadow, i.e. the sun appears to be directly overhead. Due to the curved surface, the only way to achieve light 'falling' vertically under a convex dome is to shine it directly up at the middle and have it bounce straight back down to your light source at the middle.

A side note, that this light doesn't cancel itself out and create some sort of eclipse.

Just one of many millions of things where reality checks out and crystal projector dome fantasy fails or needs a special adjustment. I believe magic bending light is the standard go to. Refraction as it travels through atmospheric layers. But as we all know refraction is predictable when densities are known and the density of the atmosphere constantly changes, so you don't have the different densities in layers to give the refraction effect or 'zero shadow time' would change depending on the weather, humidity, temperature, etc. It doesn't. Oh dear.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Come back when you get it right.

Exactly.
Click to expand...
So again when I ask for an explanation you can't give one?
Not backing up any of your wacky theories well lately are you?
So back to the oceans, the deepest ones should be nearer the ice wall and the shallowest closer to the So called North Pole if your world has a raised centre then yeah?
 
legend7 said:
By your own admission all you have shared are stories and musings though, you haven't shared a single experiment have you?

Oceans make you think there is a raised central area? I'm very interested in this.
Explain?
Click to expand...

I can just see Nukey angrily walking around his computer repeatedly stamping his foot and muttering “Raised area, Why the f—k did I post that!!”

Joined the thread late today, a thing of beauty.

The WUMer WUMed😂
 
legend7 said:
So again when I ask for an explanation you can't give one?
Click to expand...
Of course, I can but never one you will accept and I'm absolutely fine with that as it's not my issue.
legend7 said:
Not backing up any of your wacky theories well lately are you?
Click to expand...
No need. I don't see anything to knock them down and certainly no facts to the one you go with.
legend7 said:
So back to the oceans, the deepest ones should be nearer the ice wall and the shallowest closer to the So called North Pole if your world has a raised centre then yeah?
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Of course, I can but never one you will accept and I'm absolutely fine with that as it's not my issue.

No need. I don't see anything to knock them down and certainly no facts to the one you go with.

Nope.
Click to expand...
Well at least offer an explanation.
You offer numerous other ridiculous things why not offer why " oceans" prove there is a raised central area.
And why "sky" light is different to "land and sea" light.
I'm really intrigued
Nukehasslefan said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
But how though.
You explained the gradient ages ago by saying the lands in the lower bowl area just rise further up.
Are you changing your mind again?
 
Last edited:
Pancho said:
In this case I don't need to.

Stay on topic and drop the infantile strawman bollocks.
Click to expand...
I don't respond to threats and as I said before Mr bias, do what you need to do if you're getting frustrated. The only win for you would be shutting me down and that's it and I honestly don't mind one bit. This is a Sunderland forum and I am sort of gatecrashing so feel free to do what you need to do but you don't get to dictate.
I hope I've made myself clear.
legend7 said:
Well at least offer an explanation.
You offer numerous other ridiculous things why not offer why " oceans" prove there is a raised central area.
And why "sky" light is different to "land and sea" light.
I'm really intrigued

But how though.
You explained the gradient ages ago by saying the lands in the lower bowl area just rise further up.
Are you changing your mind again?
Click to expand...
Time is nearly up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top