Put a flat earthier into space

[legend7]

Have you?

You said all you needed was a lazer level rather than a very long spirit level not me.
It's your experiment or is this another that you "can't share"

 

[Hend79]

No, not at all.
But the reality is, if you argue for something as fact then you have to be able to back it up and if you can't then your argument stays as just that.


You can assume she's not real but if evidence points out she is and you want to argue for her realism then all you have to do is show it to anyone who argues against her being real.

You can see the sky.

So in other words, you can ignore the overwhelming facts and evidence that we live on a globe but insist we live on a flat disc world under a dome without providing any facts to back that up.

Nope, you state that if we cant go up and visit space then its not real, same thing applies here. I cant just go and visit Margot Robbie so she isnt real either, according to your logic.

No I can see space.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You said all you needed was a lazer level rather than a very long spirit level not me.
It's your experiment or is this another that you "can't share"

You have nothing to argue with to be fair.

 

[Hend79]

Dont forget everyone, not only every single aircraft pilot on the (globe) planet is in on the great lie but this loon also believes the Earth isnt millions of years old so Archaeologists and Geologists are in on the act too

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So in other words, you can ignore the overwhelming facts and evidence that we live on a globe but insist we live on a flat disc world under a dome without providing any facts to back that up.

No, not at all. It's all about paying attention.
There's no overwhelming evidence that leads to any proof of a spinning globe, let's be clear about that and you bringing this up all the time without offering any just puts it all into perspective.

As for what I think about my Earth is not handed out as factual. It's a musing.

That's the difference.

You see, if you offered to argue with me based on you simply believing a globe because you were schooled into it then you would be arguing from a better standpoint, even though you still could not offer proof. It would make you more humble.

Nope, you state that if we cant go up and visit space then its not real, same thing applies here.

Space as a vacuum offers nothing for any mode of transport to push through it, so rockets and whatnot are in Earth's atmosphere, whether they stay and follow a jet stream/vortex as in balloons and such or missiles that simply arc right into the drink.
Nothing is moving in a so-called vacuum of space, no matter how its dressed up..

I cant just go and visit Margot Robbie so she isnt real either, according to your logic.

But you could go if you felt the need to prove it to someone who is sceptical.

No I can see space.

You can see sky.

Dont forget everyone, not only every single aircraft pilot on the (globe) planet is in on the great lie but this loon also believes the Earth isnt millions of years old so Archaeologists and Geologists are in on the act too

I don't know how old this cell is. All I can surmise is it's decaying pretty rapidly.

 

[Pink Panther]

You have nothing to argue with to be fair.

You mean - can't share because that one has been proved not to work how you want.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It would change, which it does,

See what I mean about dodging? I asked how do you think it would change if the dome changed shape and your reply to an entirely different and unasked question.

How do you suppose what we see in the sky would differ if your dome was suddenly elongated into an oval?

No, not at all.
But the reality is, if you argue for something as fact then you have to be able to back it up and if you can't then your argument stays as just that.

The breathtaking irony

 

[Nukehasslefan]

See what I mean about dodging? I asked how do you think it would change if the dome changed shape and your reply to an entirely different and unasked question.

How do you suppose what we see in the sky would differ if your dome was suddenly elongated into an oval?

You're telling me it can't be a dome because of you shining a torch, so tell me how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Hend79]

No, not at all. It's all about paying attention.
There's no overwhelming evidence that leads to any proof of a spinning globe, let's be clear about that and you bringing this up all the time without offering any just puts it all into perspective.

As for what I think about my Earth is not handed out as factual. It's a musing.

That's the difference.

You see, if you offered to argue with me based on you simply believing a globe because you were schooled into it then you would be arguing from a better standpoint, even though you still could not offer proof. It would make you more humble.

Space as a vacuum offers nothing for any mode of transport to push through it, so rockets and whatnot are in Earth's atmosphere, whether they stay and follow a jet stream/vortex as in balloons and such or missiles that simply arc right into the drink.
Nothing is moving in a so-called vacuum of space, no matter how its dressed up..

But you could go if you felt the need to prove it to someone who is sceptical.

You can see sky.

I don't know how old this cell is. All I can surmise is it's decaying pretty rapidly.

Ive never read such a load of garbage in my entire life.

Evidence of a globe is there and has been offered to you thousands of times, its not our fault you disregard it, that is on you. There is no evidence of anything other than a globe.

Quit with the condescending attitude please, you are the one in the wrong here.

Oh and I can see space, stars, planets and other celestial objects from my garden, I cant see any evidence of the magical light show dome though, because it doesnt exist.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

You're telling me it can't be a dome because of you shining a torch, so tell me how you came to that conclusion.

No I'm not.

I said that shining a torch would let you deduce the shape of the room and that the exact same principle would apply to shining a light on your supposed dome via your supposed projector. Is that so difficult to grasp? Apparently so.

If for example the projector shone upon a perfectly flat mirror, the reflection would change shape as the projection moved across it. It would get larger as it moved away from the position of the projector.
If it shone upon a perfectly spherical dome the reflection would also change as it moved along UNLESS the projector was at the exact centre of that sphere.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ive never read such a load of garbage in my entire life.

Evidence of a globe is there and has been offered to you thousands of times, its not our fault you disregard it, that is on you. There is no evidence of anything other than a globe.

Of course, you can obviously say it and say it as many times as you feel the need but the end product is always the same. You have absolutely no proof.

Quit with the condescending attitude please, you are the one in the wrong here.

Don't come to the condescending carry-on with the way you lot goon.

Oh and I can see space, stars, planets and other celestial objects from my garden, I cant see any evidence of the magical light show dome though, because it doesnt exist.

You can see images in the sky which at night give you a light show.

 

[Funtboy]

There is no edge.
It's a cell. Don't mix up the argument with some flat plate and water falling off. That's not my mindset.

Ah of course that would just be ridiculous. My bad. Ha'way the Cell...

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No I'm not.

I said that shining a torch would let you deduce the shape of the room and that the exact same principle would apply to shining a light on your supposed dome via your supposed projector. Is that so difficult to grasp? Apparently so.

Ok so you offer a room and you say you can tell it's square or it's not a dome.
So tell me how this equates to what you see in the sky?
I just find you struggling to argue.

If for example the projector shone upon a perfectly flat mirror, the reflection would change shape as the projection moved across it. It would get larger as it moved away from the position of the projector.

Ok so you now know it's not a flat mirror and nor do I offer that.

If it shone upon a perfectly spherical dome the reflection would also change as it moved along UNLESS the projector was at the exact centre of that sphere.

Which it is.

Ah of course that would just be ridiculous. My bad. Ha'way the Cell...

I wouldn't expect anything else from you or most, to be honest. That's not to have a go at you, it's just, we are basically schooled to believe we spin at over 1000 mph on a massive globe with oceans staying put whilst we also elliptically orbit around a few million-miles of the circumference of a ball of fire at 66,000 mph whilst also keeping our north pole perfectly pointed at a 323 light year star as we change orientation around the very sun circumference to offer us our seasons. And so on and so on.

That doesn't become odd to mass schooling and I get it.
It takes a lot for a person to actually bother to question it but when it is questioned it becomes sillier by the minute.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Ok so you offer a room and you say you can tell it's square or it's not a dome.

Are you still struggling with that?

So tell me how this equates to what you see in the sky?

Like I said more than once, the same principle applies whether it's a room and a torch or a fantasy cell and projector. You simply cannot create the sky as we see it with your badly thought out projector idea.

I just find you struggling to argue.

I find you struggling to understand the basics
What we see in the sky tells us we are not under a dome with a projector at the centre. It really is that simple.

Ok so you now know it's not a flat mirror and nor do I offer that.

And I didn't say you did offer that. You really do struggle with the simplest of things. We not only know that it is not a flat mirror, but we also know that if it were any reflector at all (which it isn't) then it would have to be perfectly spherical with the projector at its centre. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Not only would the projector have to be dead centre, so would every observer of the sky which they clearly are not.

Which it is.

oh really? It raises a few awkward questions for your cell layout if that's the case.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Are you still struggling with that?

Not at all.

Like I said more than once, the same principle applies whether it's a room and a torch or a fantasy cell and projector. You simply cannot create the sky as we see it with your badly thought out projector idea.

I can't help you with that train of thought. Just accept it from your side and accept I will not accept what you say from my side. That should put it to bed.

I find you struggling to understand the basics

Of course, you will. You believe in a spinning globe in a space vacuum. I wouldn't expect anything else.

What we see in the sky tells us we are not under a dome with a projector at the centre. It really is that simple.

Aye, it's better to go with being lit up by a massive few million-mile of the circumference of the sun 93 million miles away through a space vacuum of nothing to hit Earth's atmosphere that somehow stays around a ball and also keeps it warm and lit.
Forgive me if I throw that in the garbage.

And I didn't say you did offer that. You really do struggle with the simplest of things.

But you keep trying.

We not only know that it is not a flat mirror, but we also know that if it were any reflector at all (which it isn't) then it would have to be perfectly spherical with the projector at its centre. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

It's not but you have to understand the workings of it, which you clearly don't.

Not only would the projector have to be dead centre, so would every observer of the sky which they clearly are not.

Again, this comes as above.

oh really? It raises a few awkward questions for your cell layout if that's the case.

What does?

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Not at all.

Either you are struggling or refusing to understand.

I can't help you with that train of thought. Just accept it from your side and accept I will not accept what you say from my side. That should put it to bed.

No, facts are facts whether you like them or not. You don't get to have alternative facts of your own invention. It's basic physics we're talking about here, you don't get to rewrite physics to suit your fantasy.

Of course, you will. You believe in a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

And only the person who believes in naturally occurring projectors which would also have to be mind readers but cant grasp why has a problem with that.

Aye, it's better to go with being lit up by a massive few million-mile of the circumference of the sun 93 million miles away through a space vacuum of nothing to hit Earth's atmosphere that somehow stays around a ball and also keeps it warm and lit.

Aye, when that's what we see and what science and physics prove, much better to go with that than some guff dreamed up by someone who either cant see what an idiot he is being OR wants everyone to think he is for his own purposes.

Forgive me if I throw that in the garbage.

Careful, it might hit your dome/projector theory

But you keep trying.

You keep failing

It's not but you have to understand the workings of it, which you clearly don't.

Go on then genius, show how it actually works!

Again, this comes as above.

What does?

Well you first agreed that the projector would have to be dead centre although I think you could be backing away from that now. It would have to be but it clearly is not. It can not possibly be. Your own dome theory disproves itself and you cant see it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Either you are struggling or refusing to understand.

I'll leave that to you to decide.

No, facts are facts whether you like them or not.

I agree but they do have to be facts and provable or else it's arguing based on circumstantial.

You don't get to have alternative facts of your own invention.

I can have what I want for my Earth whether you like that or not.

It's basic physics we're talking about here, you don't get to rewrite physics to suit your fantasy.

It depends on who suits a fantasy. I think you for sure. As for me and my Earth, it could well be fantasy. I don't offer it as proof unlike you offering yours as proof without proof.

And only the person who believes in naturally occurring projectors which would also have to be mind readers but cant grasp why has a problem with that.

Why would a naturally occurring projector need to be a mind reader?

Aye, when that's what we see and what science and physics prove, much better to go with that than some guff dreamed up by someone who either cant see what an idiot he is being OR wants everyone to think he is for his own purposes.

I'd agree with you if they actually proved facts. The thing is they don't and you could stop the arguing by offering it if you had any, which I absolutely know you have not.

Go on then genius, show how it actually works!

I tried to do that ages ago and spent far too much time trying to get past attempted ridicule and people not taking anything in, so I'll pass on that with you as you are certainly one of those.

Well you first agreed that the projector would have to be dead centre although I think you could be backing away from that now.

Why am I backing away from it?
You see this is you trying to offer up what you think I'm thinking. This is why you get nowhere to be fair.

It would have to be but it clearly is not. It can not possibly be. Your own dome theory disproves itself and you cant see it.

No.

 

[Pancho]

I'll leave that to you to decide.

I agree but they do have to be facts and provable or else it's arguing based on circumstantial.

I can have what I want for my Earth whether you like that or not.

It depends on who suits a fantasy. I think you for sure. As for me and my Earth, it could well be fantasy. I don't offer it as proof unlike you offering yours as proof without proof.

Why would a naturally occurring projector need to be a mind reader?

I'd agree with you if they actually proved facts. The thing is they don't and you could stop the arguing by offering it if you had any, which I absolutely know you have not.

I tried to do that ages ago and spent far too much time trying to get past attempted ridicule and people not taking anything in, so I'll pass on that with you as you are certainly one of those.

Why am I backing away from it?
You see this is you trying to offer up what you think I'm thinking. This is why you get nowhere to be fair.

No.

You are now starting to flirt with trolling.

Please desist and start answering polite and sensible questions.

If you are incapable of reasonable behaviour then perhaps you should take a break and return when you can behave like an adult.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You are now starting to flirt with trolling.

Please desist and start answering polite and sensible questions.

If you are incapable of reasonable behaviour then perhaps you should take a break and return when you can behave like an adult.

You do whatever you feel like doing. I've told you before and I'll tell you again. You can ban me or wipe my posts but you will not dictate to me.
Feel free to ban me from this thread or the actual forum as a whole, for life if you're feeling really frustrated...you hyprocrite.

Get on with it.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I'll leave that to you to decide.

I have.

I agree but they do have to be facts and provable or else it's arguing based on circumstantial.

You have been provided with the facts, you just don't want to accept them.

I can have what I want for my Earth whether you like that or not.

For your Earth yes, it could be shaped like your own arse for all anyone else cares, but it's not your Earth that you're denying the shape of now is it?

It depends on who suits a fantasy. I think you for sure. As for me and my Earth, it could well be fantasy. I don't offer it as proof unlike you offering yours as proof without proof.

Gibberish. Who suits a fantasy

Why would a naturally occurring projector need to be a mind reader?

No other way of ensuring that whenever you look at the sky and wherever you look from, you see the constellations in the same shapes and positions. Like you consistently fail to understand, anything other than a perfectly spherical dome with both projector and observer at the exact centre and those constellations are going to be massively distorted.
Point your torch at the wall and yo get a circle of light, change the angle and you get a distorted oval or egg shape.

I'd agree with you if they actually proved facts. The thing is they don't and you could stop the arguing by offering it if you had any, which I absolutely know you have not.

See above.

I tried to do that ages ago and spent far too much time trying to get past attempted ridicule and people not taking anything in, so I'll pass on that with you as you are certainly one of those.

Bottled it. You either have no faith in your fantasy or you know it's bollocks and cant be arsed to make up an explanation.

Why am I backing away from it?

You tell me! Would you say the projector would have to be dead centre or would it not?

You see this is you trying to offer up what you think I'm thinking. This is why you get nowhere to be fair.

No, that's just me reading the last few replies.