Put a flat earthier into space

[RobShep]

I don't know how these scientists kept their cool, they were very professional and respectful, the flat earthers on the other hand.

The fact the scientists have analytical minds probably helps them stay calm. I go full sarcasm on the flat earthers and general conspiracy nuts, or make up even more outlandish theories for them to spread around and make them look even more crazy than they already are. They will believe anything if you make it sound slightly plausible.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Have you any proof of your version of events?

Events as in, what?

The problem with flat earthers is proven on this thread. There have always been people who have been misinformed then formed a severe cognitive bias so that any and all evidence contrary to their decision is ignored while obviously flawed "evidence" in favour of their belief is quoted as literal gospel.

The problem isn't those people, it is our engagement with them. The constant always on, always consuming content nature of the internet, social media and modernised comment- and consumption- driven classic media has led to a genuine belief that "my ignorant belief should be as respected as your knowledgeable one". People then discuss the foolishness with the fool on those terms and the very second you give them the impression you are having a discussion about a foolish belief in terms of "science" then as far as they are concerned they are having a scientific discussion about two competing scientific theories. They will invent more pseudo scientific arguments around their belief and the fact they are actually and obviously even dumber than the original belief doesn't matter - by discussing them in these terms, even entirely negatively, you are fuelling their delusion.

The fact this ignorance feedback loop is actually now being weaponised by profit driven corporations and politicians is seriously concerning but really all that is needed to stop it dead is for people to stop engaging.

Your belief and your post is absolutely relevant to you and those that follow it and I understand your mindset.

However, I could write a post equal to that and simply change a few words to turn that a round on to you and those who follow that train of thought.

iF I did you would likely take it as a massive insult because almost everyone n your mindset follows the exact process that you follow. A set narrative that has the warning of "should not be questions, or else."

If people stopped engaging with people that had alternate beliefs then they simply follow all paths from stories told as a truth, unconditionally.

That leads into dodgy territory when you come across something which you believe to be a lie or questionable and yet everyone you come across tells you that you mustn't question it because you will be cast out of normal thinking society.

I'm simply quoting this post just to see both sides so there's no need to give a reply.

The Earth carries the atmosphere with it because of gravity and 4.567 billion years worth of friction.

How do you know this?

You do not measure the rotation of the earth in mph, it's linear speed is irrelevant. It rotates at 15 degrees per hour, half the speed of the hour hand on a clock, imperceptibly slow.

Ok then they need to stop pretending the Earth rotates so fast it creates a bulge at the equator and flattening out a little at the poles, as we are regularly told.

Also you might want to look up Brian Cox's jet mission where he went up to a speed where he told us the sun stopped moving because the jet had caught up to the rotation of the Earth.

Massively contradictory.

Explain why the Coriolis effect has any bearing on using a plane as a frame of reference, in fact please explain the Coriolis effect in your own words.

If the plane supposedly gets carried by the atmosphere then so would any bullet and artillery, etc and would not veer off.

We are told the bullets veer off because the Earth spins so fast.

We are tld the same thing with the Foucault pendulum.
And as for gravity. Nobody knows what it is because it doesn't exist, in my opinion.

 

[Hep]

By your logic you are right but many would argue that there's the bible and churches and masses of people, plus experts that know what happened.....etc.
We get shown films and see statues over the known Earth.
People have faith because of all of this.
Strikingly similar to space stuff.


That depends how you look at it.
What are you seeing that confirms a spinning globe?



But you can't see any curvature.
I've been in planes and I see no evidence of any curvature.


I believe I do it on sound critical thinking.
People are all too willing to believe I'm the fool for seeing and testing water level when they can tell me it curves over a sphere because of a magical force that nobody can explain.




Watching how stuff moves in the sky is no proof we are living on a spinning globe.

A stick does not prove a spinning globe.

Maybe ask yourself how they just seem to work for decades without maintenance and how the components supposedly cool down inside of them when out in the supposed 23,000 miles of space.

There's plenty of towers strewn about Earth to cater for signals..and also elevations.
Thinking geostationary satellites are out there that ignite engines to keep them on that path, is all well and good if people choose that.
It begs massive questions and many people choose not to question something they accept unconditionally.

The planets when observed from earth move in one direction then stop turn around and travel backwards, also the stars move in patterns that can only be explained by our current scientific thinking. This is all out there for you to read.

 

[The Krankie Returns]

The planets when observed from earth move in one direction then stop turn around and travel backwards, also the stars move in patterns that can only be explained by our current scientific thinking. This is all out there for you to read.

Don’t encourage him man!!

 

[DaveH]

The planets when observed from earth move in one direction then stop turn around and travel backwards, also the stars move in patterns that can only be explained by our current scientific thinking. This is all out there for you to read.

Faked. Because you can project that on the dome of a planetarium then it is feasible that it is exactly what has been happening on the flat earth for thousands of years. The fact that the motion of the stars, planets, comets, asteroids etc, all behave exactly as they would on a globe earth with various orbits etc is just a coincidence. People are just seeing what they want to see.

Although you can model all this mathematically and maths is by its very nature absolute, the maths is wrong because we have just been schooled. There is no such thing as a mathematical proof. Basic geometry is wrong. I know these days it is fairly easy to simulate a 3d ‘world’ on a computer and test some of the theories, predict observations etc, that is also all wrong. Such knowledge of maths is not correct, we are just following a script drilled into our heads.

When you are up against a retarded mentality like that, you are on a losing battle.

 

[Prefab]

1. Ok then they need to stop pretending the Earth rotates so fast it creates a bulge at the equator and flattening out a little at the poles, as we are regularly told.

2. Also you might want to look up Brian Cox's jet mission where he went up to a speed where he told us the sun stopped moving because the jet had caught up to the rotation of the Earth.

Massively contradictory.


3. If the plane supposedly gets carried by the atmosphere then so would any bullet and artillery, etc and would not veer off.

We are told the bullets veer off because the Earth spins so fast.

1. No they don't, the bulge is created by the Earth's rotation at 15 degrees per hour. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, it is measurable.

2. The plane is simply moving at a speed that matches the Earth's rotation. Here's the problem for flattards, at the equator it would be 1000mph and at higher or lower latitudes that speed would be lower up to a point at which you could literally crawl around the earth on all fours and outrun the sun. Try doing that on the flat earth map, you can't at southern latitudes because once you're south of the equator you'd have to travel at ever faster speeds than the much vaunted 1000mph to match the sun's movement the further south you go, testable.

3. As expected you have zero understanding of Coriolis, there is a fundamental difference between a plane and an artillery shell/bullet. Planes and missiles etc have their own source of thrust and don't have to take Coriolis into account whereas artillery and bullets are ballistic and do. Once again please explain Coriolis in your own words.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You (being an idiot) keep banging on about flat liquids in containers - the earths curvature is around 8 inches per mile with a mile being 63360 inches hence the earth drops by 1.263 x 10-4 inches per inch of measured distance. If your bath is 6 feet long (72 inches) then even if it conformed exactly to the curvature of the earth the drop between one and and the other would be 0.0091 inches or 0.23mm - so can you perceive a drop of 0.23mm in your bath? If not then how can you prove liquid is flat moron.

You don't need any bath.
The 8 inches per mile squared would render anything in just a 3 mile distance, 6 feet below level.
Looking over a lake to Toronto which is 30 miles away, it would mean for 8 inches per mile squared the drop would have to be 600 feet.
How many towers in Toronto are bigger than 600 feet and how much of them are seen from 30 miles away?

 

[taipeisafc]

You don't need any bath.
The 8 inches per mile squared would render anything in just a 3 mile distance, 6 feet below level.
Looking over a lake to Toronto which is 30 miles away, it would mean for 8 inches per mile squared the drop would have to be 600 feet.
How many towers in Toronto are bigger than 600 feet and how much of them are seen from 30 miles away?

Gibberish utter drivel. It is 8 inches per mile what on earth are you on about squaring stuff? If you are looking 30 miles the drop is 240 inches or 20 feet not 600 feet you utter plank. Learn how to do numbers you clown

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I think there are a few questions that always come up on these threads which generally sums up the situation:
1) Can you directly observe the earth is a spinning globe? Yes

No.

2) Can you use observational evidence to prove mathematically that the earth can only be a spinning globe? Yes

No.

3) Can you use some of the above to explain in a reasonable way to an 8 year old? Yes

Absolutely, which is why many of us grew up with that in mind.

4) Can you use the above to explain it in a way the likes of Nucastlefan fan understand? No - some things are just far too difficult.

Correct. I was the 8 year old who understood it.
I'm now the adult that questions it and it makes no sense when you take out the magical mysterious stories to make the fiction (in my opinion) work.

You can change the minds of 50 academics with one fact but you can't convince one moron with 50 facts.

The issue is in, what are the facts?

The planets when observed from earth move in one direction then stop turn around and travel backwards, also the stars move in patterns that can only be explained by our current scientific thinking. This is all out there for you to read.

What are they proving?
And what do you mean by turning around and going backwards?

 

[The Krankie Returns]

Will people stop giving him a platform. He’s playing you all for idiots.

 

[Roman maroni]

No.

No.

Absolutely, which is why many of us grew up with that in mind.

Correct. I was the 8 year old who understood it.
I'm now the adult that questions it and it makes no sense when you take out the magical mysterious stories to make the fiction (in my opinion) work.

The issue is in, what are the facts?

What are they proving?
And what do you mean by turning around and going backwards?

You are an absolute f***ing moron, you really are.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

1. No they don't, the bulge is created by the Earth's rotation at 15 degrees per hour. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, it is measurable.

Can you explain that?

2. The plane is simply moving at a speed that matches the Earth's rotation.

Even if the plane goes opposite that rotation?
Even if it goes left or right of that rotation?
Are you saying it can lift off against Earth's supposed rotation and be dragged along with that rotation?
If so, any idea how?

Here's the problem for flattards, at the equator it would be 1000mph and at higher or lower latitudes that speed would be lower up to a point at which you could literally crawl around the earth on all fours and outrun the sun. Try doing that on the flat earth map, you can't at southern latitudes because once you're south of the equator you'd have to travel at ever faster speeds than the much vaunted 1000mph to match the sun's movement the further south you go, testable.

How is any of it testable?

3. As expected you have zero understanding of Coriolis, there is a fundamental difference between a plane and an artillery shell/bullet. Planes and missiles etc have their own source of thrust and don't have to take Coriolis into account whereas artillery and bullets are ballistic and do. Once again please explain Coriolis in your own words.

I understand it but it makes no sense when pitted against other moving objects.
Maybe you can explain it.

Gibberish utter drivel. It is 8 inches per mile what on earth are you on about squaring stuff? If you are looking 30 miles the drop is 240 inches or 20 feet not 600 feet you utter plank. Learn how to do numbers you clown

I'll let someone put you right. I'm happy for you to think that way, if it suits you.

Will people stop giving him a platform. He’s playing you all for idiots.

I'd suggest you allow people to choose how they respond.
You are free to totally ignore it all but you choose not to.

You are an absolute f***ing moron, you really are.

And you're quite entitled to think that.

 

[What A Waster]

You don't need any bath.
The 8 inches per mile squared would render anything in just a 3 mile distance, 6 feet below level.
Looking over a lake to Toronto which is 30 miles away, it would mean for 8 inches per mile squared the drop would have to be 600 feet.
How many towers in Toronto are bigger than 600 feet and how much of them are seen from 30 miles away?

Using your working out at 6 feet over 3 miles, or 2ft per mile..... do you not mean 60ft over 30 miles?
How do you manage to get to 600ft?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Using your working out at 6 feet over 3 miles, or 2ft per miles..... do you not mean 60ft over 30 miles?
How do you manage to get to 600ft?

Because the per mile distance is always squared.

 

[What A Waster]

Because the per mile distance is always squared.

Why?

 

[Roman maroni]

Because the per mile distance is always squared.

How do you explain the different seasons on a flat earth, or the 6 months of darkness and 6 months of daylight in the Arctic, you can only explain this on a globe.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why?

Because of the supposed curvature of Earth.
Think about it.

If you are on a part of Earth that you believe is convex then your fist mile sees a 8 inch for one mile squared, end height for that mile.
If you carry on the line over to the next mile from the start of your end of first mile then your height difference rises by the next squared distance x 2 miles.
And so on.
All based on Earth's supposed size.

 

[The Krankie Returns]

Can you explain that?


Even if the plane goes opposite that rotation?
Even if it goes left or right of that rotation?
Are you saying it can lift off against Earth's supposed rotation and be dragged along with that rotation?
If so, any idea how?



How is any of it testable?



I understand it but it makes no sense when pitted against other moving objects.
Maybe you can explain it.

I'll let someone put you right. I'm happy for you to think that way, if it suits you.

I'd suggest you allow people to choose how they respond.
You are free to totally ignore it all but you choose not to.

And you're quite entitled to think that.

I agree, those on the forum have their own minds and are free to post whatever they wish in reaction to your posts. Apart from this reply, I’m ignoring you. You on the other hand feel that you had to specifically comment on one of my posts. I will continue to put whatever I wish on this thread, just like you are free to do. And I stand by my assertion that you are playing some of the posters on this thread for fools.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

How do you explain the different seasons on a flat earth, or the 6 months of darkness and 6 months of daylight in the Arctic, you can only explain this on a globe.

You mean it can only be explained because everything has been catered for with a globe model.

They had to have it tiled at 23.5 degrees to match what people observe.
They had to have it taking an elliptical orbit around a centralised so called ball of fire in a vacuum.
They had to have the so called moon tidally locked and rotating with Earth at 10 mph.

And so on and so on.
Over the years as the story was told and picked apart, changes got made until the model matched what people saw and questioned, even if it had to have a supposed laws of relativity and conservation of momentum laws that go outside the realms of reality, down to 3 supposed laws of motion that only require one.

It's hard to prove because you can't prove something that does not show that proof.
This is why it's become easy to have us spinning in a vacuum on a big wobbling ball.....and so on.

 

[Roman maroni]

You mean it can only be explained because everything has been catered for with a globe model.

They had to have it tiled at 23.5 degrees to match what people observe.
They had to have it taking an elliptical orbit around a centralised so called ball of fire in a vacuum.
They had to have the so called moon tidally locked and rotating with Earth at 10 mph.

And so on and so on.
Over the years as the story was told and picked apart, changes got made until the model matched what people saw and questioned, even if it had to have a supposed laws of relativity and conservation of momentum laws that go outside the realms of reality, down to 3 supposed laws of motion that only require one.

It's hard to prove because you can't prove something that does not show that proof.
This is why it's become easy to have us spinning in a vacuum on a big wobbling ball.....and so on.

Stop it with the gibberish mate, you can't explain any of it on a flat earth, and that is a fact.