Put a flat earthier into space



legend7

Midfield
Yep.

Nope.

Ahhhh right, I see what you're getting at.
Let me try and explain my set up one more time.

The gradient would be absolutely nothing like this. It's only like this to show the premise of what Earth potentially is.

I've explained this but you seem to think the land masses are high up the gradient rather than gradually elevated.
I'll further explain so you are under no illusions about it.
Take a look at the outer part of the circle. The inner rim of the concave bowl before the Earth curves up into a dome.
The water would be sitting high up the bowl which would correspond with the water on the convex gradient.

Anything sitting within that would certainly be submerged if the land mass was not higher than it, sitting within it, which is the case with all land mass. Some sit way higher than others.

If you try to use the bowl with landmass sitting up a mountain, I can't help you.
Just to add. If you think like this then your would have to argue your globe curve based on a small picture. Clearly you can see why that's pointless....right?
Same thing you're trying to do here.
Your map clearly shows land masses at the very bottom which would have to be submerged if there are water bodies that run from the very top to the bottom of the bowl.
Or are you saying these masses at the bottom tower up through this water all the way to the surface bearing in mind the average ocean depth is measured at only about 2 miles deep?
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
Your map clearly shows land masses at the very bottom which would have to be submerged if there are water bodies that run from the very top to the bottom of the bowl.
Or are you saying these masses at the bottom tower up through this water all the way to the surface bearing in mind the average ocean depth is measured at only about 2 miles deep?
The average ocean depth of 2 miles deep is not all depths at 2 miles deep.
The pacific is much deeper than the atlantic as we're told. Right?

Understand that landmass is dotted all around these oceans. Some more submerged than others.
You're looking at a map and looking at it from the actual small diagram mindset.

You drew landmass on an upturned bowl which showed me that is your mindset. If you want to go with that then fair enough but it is not my thoughts and I can't explain it if your mind is set on that.

You'll just have to go with your own flow (pardon the pun) and decide my model is nuts and the global one is your reality, like you do.
 

SYB_DC

Winger
Easy way to debunk this flat earth. Very easy. Get in a plane on the equator. Fly it exactly on the equator east or west. After a long enough time you arrive at the same point.

Some mad bastards walk amongst us.

What I was trying to point out is that there's no way you can draw a flat earth that results in accurate direction and distance. For example, Auckland and Sydney are demonstrably around 1350 miles apart, very near due east-west of one another. So are Barcelona and Istanbul. These are hardly disputable facts, these routes are flown by the same types of planes over the same time windows day in and day out. They fly similar headings to get there. But there's no model of a flat earth that shows how these real-world facts could possibly work because, well, sometimes the facts just overtake you.

How the hell did this thread reach 125 pages?
In the same way that Jim Carrey movies sell tickets. Turns out that people are amused by cringey, embarrassing comedy based largely on idiocy.
 
Last edited:

legend7

Midfield
The average ocean depth of 2 miles deep is not all depths at 2 miles deep.
The pacific is much deeper than the atlantic as we're told. Right?

Understand that landmass is dotted all around these oceans. Some more submerged than others.
You're looking at a map and looking at it from the actual small diagram mindset.

You drew landmass on an upturned bowl which showed me that is your mindset. If you want to go with that then fair enough but it is not my thoughts and I can't explain it if your mind is set on that.

You'll just have to go with your own flow (pardon the pun) and decide my model is nuts and the global one is your reality, like you do.
Well the map you posted clearly shows a raised centre?
And bodies of water that begin there but end at the lower bowl.
The deepest part of any ocean we know is only 6 miles deep and that's an isolated trench.
Your model looks like quite a slope along something like 9000 miles, a 6 mile drop over 9000 miles would look nothing like the "model" you proposed, a slope wouldn't even show on your map it would look totally flat?
Or don't tell me, everything we know about sea depths is made up stories too.........
 

monkeytassle

Striker
What I was trying to point out is that there's no way you can draw a flat earth that results in accurate direction and distance. For example, Auckland and Sydney are demonstrably around 1350 miles apart, very near due east-west of one another. So are Barcelona and Istanbul. These are hardly disputable facts, these routes are flown by the same types of planes over the same time windows day in and day out. They fly similar headings to get there. But there's no model of a flat earth that shows how these real-world facts could possibly work because, well, sometimes the facts just overtake you.


In the same way that Jim Carrey movies sell tickets. Turns out that people are amused by cringey, embarrassing comedy based largely on idiocy.
Oh I'm totally with you. I was trying to make it simple for the simpletons
 

Nukehasslefan

Midfield
Well the map you posted clearly shows a raised centre?
The map I posted was to illustrate what I believe Earth to be, with a dome on top.
Do you see a dome on top of it?
I also mentioned the landmass is not to be taken as my set up. Look back for that if you overlooked it or weren't in the topic at the time.
Having said that my explanation still stands with this Earth shape.
The Raised centre is like I mentioned. Gradual over massive distance before you even reach the part of it that is inhospitable. To man and machine.
And bodies of water that begin there but end at the lower bowl.
Yep but they would be lakes and rivers flowing from high to low.
The oceans will be on the same level. I've explained it so you just need to get your head around it, if you want to....for your own mindset. If not, no issue here.
The deepest part of any ocean we know is only 6 miles deep and that's an isolated trench.

It doesn't matter what it's said to be in terms of deep. The water is level, unhindered.
How deep it goes is of absolutely no issue. It's how it raises to the landmass which comes from the bowl itself and the lakes and rivers that flow into it.
Your model looks like quite a slope along something like 9000 miles, a 6 mile drop over 9000 miles would look nothing like the "model" you proposed, a slope wouldn't even show on your map it would look totally flat?

Yep the little model does look like quite a slope. If you can figure out a way to make it like I explained then go for it.....or....just accept what I'm saying about the gradual gradient over thousands of miles.
Or don't tell me, everything we know about sea depths is made up stories too.........
I'm not really interested in that at the minute. It serves no purpose for what I'm saying.
 

legend7

Midfield
The map I posted was to illustrate what I believe Earth to be, with a dome on top.
Do you see a dome on top of it?
I also mentioned the landmass is not to be taken as my set up. Look back for that if you overlooked it or weren't in the topic at the time.
Having said that my explanation still stands with this Earth shape.
The Raised centre is like I mentioned. Gradual over massive distance before you even reach the part of it that is inhospitable. To man and machine.

Yep but they would be lakes and rivers flowing from high to low.
The oceans will be on the same level. I've explained it so you just need to get your head around it, if you want to....for your own mindset. If not, no issue here.


It doesn't matter what it's said to be in terms of deep. The water is level, unhindered.
How deep it goes is of absolutely no issue. It's how it raises to the landmass which comes from the bowl itself and the lakes and rivers that flow into it.


Yep the little model does look like quite a slope. If you can figure out a way to make it like I explained then go for it.....or....just accept what I'm saying about the gradual gradient over thousands of miles.

I'm not really interested in that at the minute. It serves no purpose for what I'm saying.
Absolute bollocks as you can't explain how water can be at the same level near the top of your map and at the lowest point.
Think id have more respect if like most of your stuff you just said you don't claim to have the answers but we're not on a ball blah blah blah.
 

fyl2u

Striker
Your map clearly shows land masses at the very bottom which would have to be submerged if there are water bodies that run from the very top to the bottom of the bowl.
Or are you saying these masses at the bottom tower up through this water all the way to the surface bearing in mind the average ocean depth is measured at only about 2 miles deep?

Which would mean that we're back to it being a "flat earth".
 

DaveH

Striker
Does that water run up the inner sides of the bowl and stay level or not?
You're just verifying what I said.
It doesn't flow up. As you pour water into the bowl then the water level rises, which I assume is what you mean. That water level rises evenly (to the naked eye) across the whole surface of the bowl. When I stop pouring it sits level.

If I made a lemon squeezer shape out of putty it would fill the lower trench in a ring and not touch either the inner our outer slopes once I had stopped pouring. If I poured directly into the trench then it would never touch the upper slopes. If I drew a sketch map of the world on it, there would be no northern or southern oceans. Those landmasses in the trench would be under water. I've not been able to travel to the southern hemisphere for a number of years, but I know the north sea is still there and if we had lost China, South America and half of Africa, I feel someone would have mentioned it. Or did it go unnoticed because of Brexit and Covid filling the news?
 

legend7

Midfield
It doesn't flow up. As you pour water into the bowl then the water level rises, which I assume is what you mean. That water level rises evenly (to the naked eye) across the whole surface of the bowl. When I stop pouring it sits level.

If I made a lemon squeezer shape out of putty it would fill the lower trench in a ring and not touch either the inner our outer slopes once I had stopped pouring. If I poured directly into the trench then it would never touch the upper slopes. If I drew a sketch map of the world on it, there would be no northern or southern oceans. Those landmasses in the trench would be under water. I've not been able to travel to the southern hemisphere for a number of years, but I know the north sea is still there and if we had lost China, South America and half of Africa, I feel someone would have mentioned it. Or did it go unnoticed because of Brexit and Covid filling the news?
Mate I've drew diagrams and even defaced a cereal bowl he just doesn't understand or can't explain how a point of water at the top of his map can be at the same level as a point in the bowl 🤷‍♂️ he spouts some bollocks about a shallow gradient over a big distance which is irrelevant as they would still be the same level according to his bathtub.
 

DaveH

Striker
Mate I've drew diagrams and even defaced a cereal bowl he just doesn't understand or can't explain how a point of water at the top of his map can be at the same level as a point in the bowl 🤷‍♂️ he spouts some bollocks about a shallow gradient over a big distance which is irrelevant as they would still be the same level according to his bathtub.
I know. Every argument he had against the globe earth now breaks down his own musings for what the earth looks like. Any explanation is just word salad. The sentences barely string together. But look way back at what I said about a theory that conspiracy theorists have a hero complex.

Most posts are designed for attention, to keep people coming back asking for more and in their eyes they are elevated to being a wise old sage who others are now seeking for their wisdom. “well we all know what that means don’t we?” is a common phrase with some. Usually the answer to such is ”no, no idea what you are talking about”. Similar to the lockdown conspiracies “ there has been a gradual erosion of our freedoms for decades it is obvious where it is going”. All statements that say nothing but invite questions. Tell us more.

Look at how much he is loving this. Paints a picture of a lemon squeezer earth after months of saying the earth is not a globe but not saying flat either. Finally we get something and then it is follower by “that is not the true shape”. Please ask more questions. There is clear enjoyment at turning the phrases around on us. After months of us pointing out he understands very little about anything, most of his words are random gibberish badly stuck together. We reply what (he gets is question), he implies we are stupid, he gets a reaction.

It is all a feedback loop. Watch through posts over the next few days, every one there to provoke a reaction.
 

legend7

Midfield
I know. Every argument he had against the globe earth now breaks down his own musings for what the earth looks like. Any explanation is just word salad. The sentences barely string together. But look way back at what I said about a theory that conspiracy theorists have a hero complex.

Most posts are designed for attention, to keep people coming back asking for more and in their eyes they are elevated to being a wise old sage who others are now seeking for their wisdom. “well we all know what that means don’t we?” is a common phrase with some. Usually the answer to such is ”no, no idea what you are talking about”. Similar to the lockdown conspiracies “ there has been a gradual erosion of our freedoms for decades it is obvious where it is going”. All statements that say nothing but invite questions. Tell us more.

Look at how much he is loving this. Paints a picture of a lemon squeezer earth after months of saying the earth is not a globe but not saying flat either. Finally we get something and then it is follower by “that is not the true shape”. Please ask more questions. There is clear enjoyment at turning the phrases around on us. After months of us pointing out he understands very little about anything, most of his words are random gibberish badly stuck together. We reply what (he gets is question), he implies we are stupid, he gets a reaction.

It is all a feedback loop. Watch through posts over the next few days, every one there to provoke a reaction.
Yeah I find the whole thing totally fascinating tbh, his "map" has been his downfall tbh as none of his ideas or theory's make any sense whatsoever now, would have made more sense if he had said it was totally flat actually.
 

DaveH

Striker
Yeah I find the whole thing totally fascinating tbh, his "map" has been his downfall tbh as none of his ideas or theory's make any sense whatsoever now, would have made more sense if he had said it was totally flat actually.
But the fault is not gibberish and water flowing up hill and not staying level. The fault is us being too stupid to understand. It is connected to our global brain washing. Same as his inability to understand basic geometry was not his fault, it is the fault of reality.

Bullet proof cover and designed to provoke.
 

legend7

Midfield
But the fault is not gibberish and water flowing up hill and not staying level. The fault is us being too stupid to understand. It is connected to our global brain washing. Same as his inability to understand basic geometry was not his fault, it is the fault of reality.

Bullet proof cover and designed to provoke.
I know, if only just hadn't listened to those lying teachers
 

DPTT

Winger
Would love to know on his map where the bloody sun is meant to be🤷‍♂️
I cannot see a huge big hole with crystals etc??
 

Top