Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

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.

I'm not telling you not to post on the thread, I'm simply saying that people don't need you to coax them away from it just because you do not like it.
You just appear to be getting wound up over me simply being myself.

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

You can't prove anything of what you're saying pertaining to the globe you believe in, so it puts you in the same position of guessing or accepting what you're told without proof.

 

[The Krankie Returns]

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

Mate, he’s loving it.

 

[Roman maroni]

I'm not telling you not to post on the thread, I'm simply saying that people don't need you to coax them away from it just because you do not like it.
You just appear to be getting wound up over me simply being myself.

You can't prove anything of what you're saying pertaining to the globe you believe in, so it puts you in the same position of guessing or accepting what you're told without proof.

It's all been proven mate, you still haven't answered my question.

 

[taipeisafc]

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 idiocy never ends you really have no clue at all.

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

I am waiting for someone to put me right - as to how you need to square a drop per linear mile......arrogant and moron to boot.

 

[DaveH]

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.

Fire can only be explained because it has been catered for with the accepted model

They had to make it really hot to match what people observed
They had to have it destroying the objects that it burned, reducing them to ash
They had to have it to be able to be doused with water

And so on and so on
Over the years as the story was told and picked apart, changed got made until the model of fire matched what people saw and questioned. They even had to have it extinguish when deprived of oxygen, in say a large jar because as time progressed they discovered that happened.

Saying this stuff is easy. Not sounding like a gibbering idiot when saying it is not so easy.

In my example, does fire do all those things we can observe and repeat because we want it to, or just because it is what fire is and what it does?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The idiocy never ends you really have no clue at all.

I am waiting for someone to put me right - as to how you need to square a drop per linear mile......arrogant and moron to boot.

Per mile squared.
I'll leave it to someone to help you out.

Fire can only be explained because it has been catered for with the accepted model

They had to make it really hot to match what people observed
They had to have it destroying the objects that it burned, reducing them to ash
They had to have it to be able to be doused with water

And so on and so on
Over the years as the story was told and picked apart, changed got made until the model of fire matched what people saw and questioned. They even had to have it extinguish when deprived of oxygen, in say a large jar because as time progressed they discovered that happened.

Saying this stuff is easy. Not sounding like a gibbering idiot when saying it is not so easy.

In my example, does fire do all those things we can observe and repeat because we want it to, or just because it is what fire is and what it does?

We could about about how and why fire works as it does, if you want.

 

[DaveH]

Per mile squared.
I'll leave it to someone to help you out.

We could about about how and why fire works as it does, if you want.

What?? That doesn't answer the question. Does fire behave the way it does because that is what we observe and had to create the model to fit the narrative? Or do we observe fire doing what it does because that is just what it is and how it acts?

 

[taipeisafc]

Per mile squared.
I'll leave it to someone to help you out.

We could about about how and why fire works as it does, if you want.

Sadly nobody can help you out - you are wrong a rudimentary understanding of geometry would show this but you are either too arrogant or stupid to admit it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What?? That doesn't answer the question. Does fire behave the way it does because that is what we observe and had to create the model to fit the narrative? Or do we observe fire doing what it does because that is just what it is and how it acts?

Do you determine fore as in, a flame from a torch or a burning field or molten metal.........what?
Do they all perform the same to the eye or are we to look molecularly closer?

Sadly nobody can help you out - you are wrong a rudimentary understanding of geometry would show this but you are either too arrogant or stupid to admit it.

I can't help you if you don't want to understand the 8 inches per mile, squared.

 

[DaveH]

Do you determine fore as in, a flame from a torch or a burning field or molten metal.........what?
Do they all perform the same to the eye or are we to look molecularly closer?

I can't help you if you don't want to understand the 8 inches per mile, squared.

Lets just assume a camp fire, burning wood, logs, branches etc.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Lets just assume a camp fire, burning wood, logs, branches etc.

Ok we observe flames of varying colours and smoke and feel the heat if we're close to it.

This does not tell us what is fully happening so we have to dig deeper to get to the reality.
What do you know extra to this?

 

[DaveH]

Ok we observe flames of varying colours and smoke and feel the heat if we're close to it.

This does not tell us what is fully happening so we have to dig deeper to get to the reality.
What do you know extra to this?

You seem to be constantly avoiding my question and waffling a bit.

Do are flames hot because we think they should be and that is the 'standard model' that they made to meet expectations, or are they hot because they are?

 

[Northern Boarders]

I honestly don't know why people bother to engage with posters who have no interest in having a genuine discussion. Their craving for attention and desire to be relevant means they will never be open to reasoned discussion and will never ever be able to provide evidence of their own beliefs because it's utter drivel.
Post waffle, avoid questions, go off on a tangent ... rinse and repeat.

 

[rudd]

Do you determine fore as in, a flame from a torch or a burning field or molten metal.........what?
Do they all perform the same to the eye or are we to look molecularly closer?

I can't help you if you don't want to understand the 8 inches per mile, squared.

You can't help anyone. Using per mile squared is a parabolic function and only someone massively misinformed would assume that's relative to a globe earth.
It can be used as a very vague approximation but only for very small distances.

 

[PeteFTM]

I’m convinced there’s no actual flat earthers anywhere and it’s just bored people on wind ups/attention seeking. I refuse to believe anyone is that stupid.

 

[RobShep]

I honestly don't know why people bother to engage with posters who have no interest in having a genuine discussion. Their craving for attention and desire to be relevant means they will never be open to reasoned discussion and will never ever be able to provide evidence of their own beliefs because it's utter drivel.
Post waffle, avoid questions, go off on a tangent ... rinse and repeat.

It would be interesting to know what recreational substances are involved in this.

I’m convinced there’s no actual flat earthers anywhere and it’s just bored people on wind ups/attention seeking. I refuse to believe anyone is that stupid.

I try to pretend nobody is that stupid but the evidence to back it up grows daily. Unlike evidence the earth is flat.

 

[PeteFTM]

I try to pretend nobody is that stupid but the evidence to back it up grows daily. Unlike evidence the earth is flat.

I just think it’s attention seekers mate. Uninteresting people with a desperate need to feel interesting, so they pretend to be flat earthers to be “different”.

 

[RobShep]

I just think it’s attention seekers mate. Uninteresting people with a desperate need to feel interesting, so they pretend to be flat earthers to be “different”.

It is almost impossible to convince a genuine flat earther that they are wrong without treatment but a fair number are just the type who follow anything to be part of something. If they could be convinced of the power of hygeine i suspect a lot of them might abandon their obscure and strange beliefs when other humans would accept their company.

 

[Hep]

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?

If you watch Mars it moves across the sky in one direction, the stops and starts going in the other direction. This is because we are both orbiting the sun.

 

[Danny]

@Nukehasslefan

I believe its a globe but having watched a load of interviews with Donald Hoffman recently I keep an open mind. I think your confidence outweighs your ability to understand what you are saying. You come across as absolutely sure yet you can't prove your theory or produce any credible evidence. Big claims require big evidence and you don't have any to even suggest the current model is incorrect.

If you truly believed what you are saying then you would go to the edge and document it as evidence. Until you find the edge your theory has no place in modern science and is rightly being shot down in flames by people who understand the current model.