• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

Nukehasslefan said:
I explained it all before.
Hydrogen/helium....etc, icicles coming loose from the dome and friction burning in more dense atmosphere high up, until they turn back to gas and take their place back into the atmospheric layer they equalise in as that gas.

Pretty simple to think on if you really want to look at it from my side. Not so simple if you obviously look at it as rocks and ice just flying through a vacuum in a sort of orbit or whatever.
Click to expand...
That would surely distort the dome. If bits fall off then it is not a perfectly smooth reflection screen. If you watched the sun, moon, planets and stars you would see the effects that you get when you project anything onto a non-even surface. This doesn't happen.

I'm leaning to the side of thinking it might all be a load of rubbish with no evidence that doesn't work when you consider the details of observed reality.
 

Nukehasslefan said:
I thought I answered it.
Click to expand...
You waffled saying anyone can tell a lie. Do you think this person behind the Juno mission and the analysis is real and if so are they a liar.

I certainly didn't think it was clear from your answer, so a pair of yes/no answers would really help clarify.
 
DaveH said:
That would surely distort the dome. If bits fall off then it is not a perfectly smooth reflection screen. If you watched the sun, moon, planets and stars you would see the effects that you get when you project anything onto a non-even surface. This doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
It will distort the dome but not distort it in a way that would offer any distorted in your face reflection back to us as if we're looking into a mirror on a ceiling with imperfections on it.

DaveH said:
I'm leaning to the side of thinking it might all be a load of rubbish with no evidence that doesn't work when you consider the details of observed reality.
Click to expand...
Keep leaning that way. I'm not here to please you or coax you into anything outside your own comfort zone.
You ask questions and I answer.
If you don't like the answers then that's your right. I don't like your answers, so I can easily sympathise with you.
DaveH said:
You waffled saying anyone can tell a lie. Do you think this person behind the Juno mission and the analysis is real and if so are they a liar.

I certainly didn't think it was clear from your answer, so a pair of yes/no answers would really help clarify.
Click to expand...
It depends on how far the person was initiated into the program he was set in terms of actual physically knowing where it went.
 
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan said:
It will distort the dome but not distort it in a way that would offer any distorted in your face reflection back to us as if we're looking into a mirror on a ceiling with imperfections on it.
Click to expand...
A distorted surface reflects light in a distorted manner. It doesn't matter where the observer stands. That's the nature of reflection from any concave parabolic surface (for example, any lens).
 
SYB_DC said:
A distorted surface reflects light in a distorted manner. It doesn't matter where the observer stands. That's the nature of reflection from any concave parabolic surface (for example, any lens).
Click to expand...
Yep. If you want to go on about telescopes and microscopes and what not, then yes.

Try not to get into too much fettle about a massive dome Earth.
It's not like you're going to see your own face elongated like the back of a spoon or something.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Not most, just the few that consistently use the same digging. I only bin them to make it easier to sift through worthy answers.
Click to expand...

Just the ones that have proven you wrong too many times.

I'm sure that when you look at this thread each day, all you see are your own posts and those from one or two posters.

Must be such a tranquil thread where you can't see all the proof that you're wrong.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Yep. If you want to go on about telescopes and microscopes and what not, then yes.

Try not to get into too much fettle about a massive dome Earth.
It's not like you're going to see your own face elongated like the back of a spoon or something.
Click to expand...

So you don't know the difference between concave and convex. Or understand that lenses includes any lens, like the ones in a standard pair down at SpecSavers. Cool.
 
Nobby said:
The fun bit is when someone references another part of his model that contradicts his new bit. The mental gymnastics and made up "science" is a sight to behold
Click to expand...
It's mad because he's took this position where it's impossible to get out of. Has to reject everything presented to keep his belief going. Can't even just concede one thing presented on here could be correct because if that is correct then so is this, this and this... then it all falls down.
Other day using a quote from Neil Degrasse Tyson to prove you can't see the curve of the earth... yet Tyson would agree with absolutely nothing Nukey says. I'm paraphrasing here but he said something along the lines of "well he's right about that in the video but wrong about everything else".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top